Davutoglu backs Bahceli’s Ocalan remarks, urges steps toward peace process

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region - Turkey’s former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu discussed the prospects of a renewed peace process in Turkey during an interview with Rudaw, following recent remarks by Devlet Bahceli, leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), who proposed allowing jailed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Ocalan to address the Turkish parliament.

Davutoglu emphasized the importance of fostering mutual understanding between Kurds and Turks, underscoring the necessity of democratic principles to guide the process and help overcome existing obstacles.

Davutoglu, who is now the leader of the Future (Gelecek) Party, also spoke of his relation with Kurdistan Region leaders such as President Nechirvan Barzani, Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) leader Masoud Barzani, and the late Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. 

The following is the full interview with Davutoglu:

Rudaw: I would like to start with the most pressing issue on the agenda. As you know, following the statements of Mr. Devlet Bahceli, there has been significant anticipation for a serious peace process. On the other hand, trustee appointments have been made. Do you think a new process could begin under such circumstances? What strategic and legal steps need to be taken for a possible new process to succeed?

Ahmet Davutoglu: First of all, I send my greetings to all my brothers and sisters in the Kurdistan Region, in Erbil, Sulaimani, Duhok, and Zakho. Everyone knows how well I understand and love that region.

When I evaluate events, I try to consider the global trajectory, the position of the Middle East within that context, and Turkey’s role in this process. Then, I think about what needs to be done within Turkey, what should be done in the Middle East, and how these actions might impact the world.

The world is undergoing a major transformation, and we must recognize this. Unfortunately, during periods of significant change, the greatest suffering has often occurred in our region. So, as Turkey, how can we work with all the brothers and sisters in this geography to build a better world? This has always been my perspective.

That’s why I supported Mr. Bahceli’s statements. Perhaps the clearest support for Bahceli in the public sphere came from me. Why did I support it? Because there is a point I’ve always emphasized in Turkey: if Turks empathize with Kurds, understand their rights, and strive to address their concerns, and if Kurds reassure Turks about the unity, integrity, and security of this country, then Turkey can find peace. This applies not only to Turkey but also to Iraq and other countries.

You mentioned the title “Serok Ahmed.” [Kurdish for president] Mr. Bahceli often uses the title “Serok” in a way that mocks both me and the Kurdish language. But I have always proudly said, “Mr. Bahceli calls me ‘Serok,’ and I responded “Ser sera, Ser chavan” [Kurdish phrase for respect and hospitality].” I’ve said this in parliament and everywhere else.

Why do Kurds call me “Serok Ahmed”? I am of Yoruk origin, I am a Turkmen, but I have always said, “I would have wanted to be a Turk in Salahaddin’s army or a Kurd in Alparslan’s army.”

In 2016, during a very tense period, when I visited Diyarbakir, I stood atop a bus in front of the Great Mosque and said: “A Turkmen child born in the Taurus Mountains has the same rights and justice in these lands as a Kurdish child born on the banks of the Tigris or in the mountains of Hakkari. Neither more nor less. And just as my precious Turkish language, inherited from Yunus Emre, is sacred, so too is the precious Kurdish language, inherited from Feqiye Teyran.” At that moment, the entire square resonated with chants of “Serok Ahmed.”

The Republic of Turkey must be a democratic state. Democracy means respecting pluralism. Democracy is not about one group dominating another; it is about everyone enjoying their citizenship rights equally. When we express these ideas, Mr. Bahceli often perceived them as a threat to Turkey’s unity. But now, hearing these statements from Bahceli has made me very happy. In fact, you might have noticed that I did something quite unusual. During our group meeting, I made all the MPs from the Felicity Party (Saadet) and the Future Party applaud Bahceli.

Of course, Bahceli has criticized me harshly in the past. Why? Because I am a Turk and a Sunni. If I defend the rights of Kurds, I act justly towards them. And if I, as a Sunni, safeguard the rights of Alevis, then I truly uphold the values of the state. From this perspective, this is a very significant step in overcoming psychological barriers.

In such processes, I always emphasize psychology, Mr Shewket. If the psychological barriers are overcome and the right climate is created, the rest will proceed as technical processes. Therefore, I consider Bahceli’s statements to be very important.

But then, for three consecutive weeks during Wednesday group meetings, I called on the President [Erdogan] and said: if you have reached an agreement with Mr. Bahceli on a matter, you are the President, and you are the one governing the state. Bahceli may propose an initiative, but it is you who will implement it. Step forward and announce your plan. Clearly explain what will be done and how the process will unfold. If there is a difference of opinion between you, resolve it among yourselves. Don’t leave everyone in a state of anticipation. After expectations have been raised so high, do not let silence take hold. Unfortunately, we did not hear the same strong support from the President. He expressed general support, but what I was expecting was a national address directed at the public.

In 2013, during the peace process, I also went to Diyarbakır, spoke, and gave a conference at Dicle University. Mr Erdogan also spoke. Now, the conditions are very favorable for the process. Why? Because both Turkish nationalists, through Mr Bahceli, have put forward an important initiative, and at the same time, there is a need for a reciprocal approach. Frankly, from now on, it is somewhat the responsibility of the parties, groups, and intellectuals in Turkey who claim to defend the rights and justice of the Kurdish citizens to take action. They too need to correct this situation. When the peace process began, I was the Foreign Minister, then I returned as Prime Minister, and I supported it with all sincerity. But for this process to succeed, everyone needs to support it, and public order must not be disrupted. That is, it will not work if things that make people's lives difficult, like terrorism, violence, or digging trenches, are done. That is why the peace process did not progress. We need to learn lessons from all of this. If we learn from all of this, I believe we can move to a very positive place. I have never lost hope. I have always been optimistic and have always tried to look at things with a visionary perspective.

Right now, we need to look ahead based on Bahceli's statements. The DEM Party has its responsibilities. Let me be clear, in response to this statement, the DEM's own statement has been weak. A very left-wing ideological rhetoric was used. It needs to reach a point where it directly takes ownership of the issue. If Mr. President turns this issue into a state policy, DEM and all the relevant actors—who, as everyone knows, include Edirne [Selahattin Demirtas], Imrali [Abdullah Ocalan], and all the other key figures—if they all get involved, a positive process could begin in Turkey.

We know Mr Devlet Bahceli's previous stance on the peace process and his generally rigid attitude toward the Kurdish issue. In fact, he has often ridiculed and criticized the way people refer to you as "Serok Ahmet." How do you assess such a critical and different statement from a political figure like him? Frankly, Bahceli's statements were a surprise for many segments of society. Also, how do you evaluate the fact that such an important statement about Ocalan was made by Mr Bahceli, rather than President Erdogan, as the head of state?

Mr Bahceli likes to surprise people. I was expecting such surprises from him, but he has raised the bar quite high. Now, if he did this just once, you could say he's sending a message, or I could say he's expressing some discomfort. But for the past three weeks, he has consistently said, "I stand by my words." For that reason, I take it seriously. When we met at the parliament’s reception on October 1, we hadn’t seen each other for a long time. Of course, he's older, so out of respect, I greeted him, and he greeted us back. He said things like, "We are in a period where our state should benefit from your experience and expertise. We need to make use of your wisdom." I used the same words in return. At that time, he hadn’t made this statement yet. But he had shaken hands with DEM Party members on the same day. I initially saw these as gestures, because there had been very harsh exchanges between us before.

Let me be clear, I’ve said this before—I strongly opposed the appointment of trustees. One of the issues on which I had a disagreement with Mr. Erdogan when I was Prime Minister was the appointment of trustees. He suggested appointing trustees, and I said, “If we believe in democracy, we must respect the will of our citizens, and I cannot appoint trustees.” And during my time, not a single trustee was appointed. Mr. Bahceli knows my stance on this issue. His handshake with DEM lawmakers could have been seen as a gesture, but in such a critical process, this gesture has gone beyond that. For three weeks now, he has been saying, "I stand by my words." Well, then he needs to follow through. Frankly, if he asks me a question or seeks support on this issue, I would give him all the support I can.

This nation has suffered a great deal. I never wish for Turkey to get caught up in the ethnic and sectarian conflicts currently ongoing in the Middle East. I will do whatever it takes to prevent that. God willing, I will be visiting northern Iraq soon. Erbil holds a special place in my entry into politics. I don’t know if you know this, but at the end of 2007, there was a process regarding a referendum in Kirkuk. The discussion grew so intense between the late Jalal Talabani and Turkey that our soldiers carried out an operation in northern Iraq. The Peshmergas and the Turkish soldiers who had fought side by side in the past, found themselves facing each other. I went to Baghdad because of that situation. If those events hadn't happened, I would have resigned in January, but in February I went to Baghdad. We had a lovely dinner with the late Talabani. He was very kind and always offered wonderful hospitality. Then, Mr Nechirvan Barzani came from Erbil. I told them, “Let’s solve all these problems between us.” Because at that time, some provocative factions in Turkey were even saying the military should bomb Erbil. You may recall, but I won’t mention newspaper names, there were even headlines like “Let’s Bomb Erbil.”

There, I defended the following: Turkish aircraft fight terrorism, but the city of Erbil should remain a shared heritage for all of us. Later, I met with both Mam Jalal (Talabani) and Kak Masoud (Barzani), and then with Mr Nechirvan (Barzani), and we overcame that crisis. Our soldiers withdrew. Then, about 15–20 days later, in March, Mr Talabani, as President, came to Turkey, and that year we signed 48 agreements with Iraq. A significant portion of these agreements were related to the Kurdish Region. After that, in March, a case was filed to shut down the AK Party [Justice and Development Party]. At that point, I said, "I won’t step down." Because the AK Party closure case was a matter of democracy.

The reason I'm bringing this up is this: we need to create a peace belt, not just for Turkey, but also around us. In this regard, it is Mr. Erdogan's responsibility. Right now, there are differences between Mr. Erdogan and me. The reasons for these differences are well-known to everyone—issues like the political ethics law and many other matters. However, as an old friend and former colleague, my advice to him is this: he should take this issue seriously and share an action plan with the public as soon as possible. After leaving the position of Prime Minister, one of the things that saddened me the most was the tension between Turkey and the Kurdistan Region during the referendum process. At that time, I expressed to the President my view that this tension should not occur and that everything should be discussed face to face.

In summary, an important opportunity has now arisen. If those at the extremes soften their positions, it becomes easier for those in the center to move forward. That is, when Turkish nationalism and Kurdish nationalism are in tension like this, those in the center are under pressure. But when there is a softening, those in the center can work more easily to find a solution. Now, Mr. Bahceli was at one extreme, and it's encouraging that he's moving toward the center. I’m hopeful for a positive outcome, but I don't focus on the details. We hope a correct path will emerge.

After Mr Bahceli's statements, there have been many comments. According to some circles close to the AK Party, the "Ocalan call" is also seen as a result of a difference of opinion within the People's Alliance. Did Mr. Bahceli consult with Mr. Erdogan on this issue before making the call regarding Ocalan? Is this part of the joint strategy of the People's Alliance, or has Mr. Bahceli taken an individual initiative?

I don’t believe this is simply an individual initiative. If it were an individual initiative, you would say something once. But this has turned into a determined stance. For three weeks now, Mr Bahceli has been saying the same things. However, I’m not sure how much alignment there is between him and Mr Erdogan. Because what I expected from Mr Erdogan was to clearly stand behind this initiative. The issue isn’t Ocalan’s appearance in Parliament. That’s very symbolic and could even lead to tensions. The issue is changing the climate. It’s about making these issues something we can talk about. Every country in the Middle East faces risks, but I say this with confidence: Turkey is a country that cannot be divided. I am Turkish myself. Turkish nationalists might bring this up, but how are they going to divide Turkey? Who will divide it? Turkey is not like the other countries. Here's how it’s different. When I said this before, Mr Bahceli was upset with me, but now I’m sure he understands the intent behind what I said. The city with the largest Kurdish population in the world is not Erbil or Diyarbakır—it’s Istanbul. Right now, the place with the largest Kurdish population, where people with Kurdish identities live, is Istanbul. So now, who exactly is going to divide it, and how?

We need to have confidence in ourselves. A state that believes in itself does not fear language. A state that believes in itself does not fear different identities. In Turkey, there are minorities, Armenians, and non-Muslims. The rights granted to any of them will not divide Turkey. What will divide Turkey is exclusion. I’ve always advocated for this. Now, when we look at the situation this way, those at the other end of the issue must adopt the same language. In Turkey, there are still those who, with violence and terror, say they are defending the rights of the Kurdish people by digging trenches in the cities, making life harder for the Kurdish citizens living there, and causing the deaths of young people like Yasin Buru in Diyarbakir. This will not lead anywhere. The same thing happened a lot in northern Iraq. Masoud Barzani’s entry into Erbil was with the support of the Turkish military against terrorism. Nothing is solved with violence. Therefore, Mr. Bahceli’s call must be embraced by Erdogan. DEM, as well as everyone from Kandil, Silivri, Imrali—whoever is involved—must not miss this opportunity. This is an opportunity that must not be missed. Look, if I say certain things, they will be taken as normal. But if Bahceli says them, it means he’s making it easier for us. Why should we question his intentions, why he said it? Forget about his intentions. I hope his intentions are good. His intentions are not bad, God willing, but even if they were, I judge it by the result. Does it strengthen our brotherhood? Does it increase our peace? Otherwise, Bahceli is the one I have fought the most with in political life. What has he said to me? Politics cannot be driven by anger. That time has passed. I don’t think he’s acting individually on this issue. But I also don’t think he’s in complete alignment with Mr Erdogan, and I must be honest. Because if there were full alignment, Mr Erdogan should have defended this more clearly over the past three weeks. God willing, they will reach alignment. We will support this. We will not obstruct it in any way.

As you know, Turkey has had a previous experience with the peace process, but the process ultimately faltered. There are still many questions about why the process ended, and the most frequently asked question is: Who brought the process to an end, and why did it fail? I would like to ask you as well: Why did the peace process end? After the process ended, a very bloody period began, with the trench wars taking place. Do you feel a political responsibility for the end of the process and the subsequent trench wars? Is there no responsibility for the political and security bureaucracy regarding the events that took place at that time?

Let me speak very openly now. There’s no point in speaking in code anymore. If we are going to find a solution, everyone needs to learn from this. How did the peace process begin? The peace process started on the 2013 Nawroz. There were long preparations before that, but I won’t go into that now. I was involved in it. Our current Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hakan Fidan, was the head of MIT at that time. Of course, Mr Erdogan was ultimately leading the process. Mr Abdullah Gul, as President, was also supporting it. It was a process we all embraced. The logic of the process was to resolve issues related to the cultural and social rights of Kurds in Turkey without any negotiations or bargaining. I don’t think it is right to make the granting of rights to a citizen a subject of negotiation. For me, Kurdish language is not something to be bargained over. It’s in our party’s program: Kurdish language can be used everywhere, including in education. It’s not about, “Let’s silence the weapons and give freedom to the Kurdish language.” The Kurdish language is already something that should be given freedom.

But during that peace process, in June, it was decided that the armed elements of the PKK would leave Turkey. Both sides agreed to this. However, a few things happened in between. From what I understand, this led to some confusion within the terrorist organization. First, there were the Gezi protests. With the Gezi events, they started to wonder, "Is something happening within the government? We’ve made an agreement, but what’s going on in Turkey?" Doubts arose. The second was the rise of ISIS at that time. In 2013, I wrote a new book called Systemic Earthquake. The year 2013 was a year of many changes in the region. After that, the coup in Egypt and then the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Instead of democracy, terrorism and autocracy started to take center stage in the region.

After the ISIS attack in Syria, we saw the emergence of cantonalization and a series of events. The third factor was the December 17-25 process, when an internal coup attempt against Prime Minister Erdogan took place. At that point, the PKK, or let me say the other side of the peace process, did not withdraw its armed forces from Turkey. They didn’t honor their word. At that time, in the summer of 2013, there were some changes in the leadership within the KCK [Kurdistan Communities Union]. I won’t go into detail. The main thing that undermined and shook the trust in the peace process was that the elements that were supposed to leave Turkey in June 2013 did not leave. This raised suspicion on the state side. It seemed like they were holding on to something. If their intentions had been good, they would have kept their word. On the other side, there were questions about how firm the government was, considering the Gezi protests and the December 17-25 events. But Turkey had been negotiating with the state, not just a government—and our government was solid. And the people we were talking to were Erdogan, Davutoglu, and Gul. We were here. They didn’t keep their promise. They said they would end the armed struggle. If, at that time, in the summer, during that process, this had happened, the peace process would have been the most successful process in the region

First, there was the misconception that there would be a tremor within Turkey, as if it was unclear what might happen. Secondly, after the developments in Syria, they continued to make negative comments. During the Kobane events, I had just taken office as prime minister. I gave speeches to send my greetings to my brothers in Kobane. We allowed the Peshmerga to cross through Turkey and enter Kobane. Despite this, similar to the situation in Syria, they started to lean towards a kind of cantonization in Turkey as well. It wasn’t just the armed elements in the mountains; they tried to move into the cities. This was perceived by the state as a threat.

Meanwhile, there were elements of FETO (Fethullah Gulen's movement) within the military bureaucracy as well, of course. When I was prime minister, I always said, and still say the same thing: such processes are based on two fundamental principles. The first is uncompromising and complete democracy. We had started to do what we needed to do regarding full and complete democracy, and we were doing it at the time. The second is uncompromising public security. When I became prime minister, I noticed that trenches had been dug in the cities. Mr Shewket, when you are the foreign minister, you don’t notice these things. Why are you digging trenches in the cities? What is your intention? Barricades were set up. Things were being referred to as canton governance. A state cannot tolerate this. From that point on, if lessons are to be learned, you cannot threaten public security. And what will the state do? It will never ignore the law. There will be no more of the "disappearances" or people being forced into the mountains, as happened in the past. A group cannot just set up its own court system. Kurdish businesspeople were writing me letters asking, Do we pay taxes to the state, or to the organization? The organization was gathering in places like Yuksekova, Bitlis, and other locations. Now, I am the prime minister of this country. I am Turkish, but when I became prime minister, I wasn’t just Turkish or Kurdish. I was the prime minister. It’s my duty to protect the safety of all my citizens. In Konya or İzmir, a Turk may not have been bothered by this, they didn’t know. But when the news of martyrs came, they were saddened. But who really suffers? The Kurdish people. They are the ones who can’t go to school, can’t go to the hospital, and get stuck in the trenches. Pay attention, we as a state endured this for an entire year, up until the elections, just to prevent the peace process from collapsing.

After the elections, the main thing that sabotaged the process was the attitude of the organization [PKK]. Let me say this clearly. Looking at the election results, the organization thought that the party I was leading, the AK Party, had weakened significantly, and they called for civil war and armed struggle. Then, on July 23, as you know, they martyred two of our police officers while they were sleeping at home. I remember that morning very well. My Interior Minister and the Head of MIT called me and said, "Two of our police officers have been martyred." I told them, "This could be a provocation; look into who did it, and then report back to me." I didn’t want us to face a new provocation. The organization didn't say they did it until 8:30 AM, and until they claimed responsibility, we didn’t say “terrorist organization did it.” If the organization hadn’t claimed it, we would have continued investigating. It was possible that a foreign intelligence agency could have carried out the attack to provoke conflict. But once the organization took responsibility, we, as the state, were left with no choice but to fight back.
Don’t think I am blaming only one side here. On our side, as the state, it was also a huge mistake to allow any compromise on public security. Yes, the peace process was ongoing, but governors wouldn’t have allowed people to establish courts in places like Bitlis, which was 10 kilometers outside the city. There were also FETO elements in the military who wanted the conflict to escalate so that there would be a civil war-like situation in Turkey, which would allow them to carry out a coup.

I resisted all of this, and everyone knows that. I never compromised on the public security of the state and the people, nor did I allow the rights and law of our Kurdish citizens to be harmed. Whenever any news came, I immediately followed up and took action. In places like Cizre, Diyarbakir, and many others, people know. I worked hard to ensure that nothing happened to our citizens or their rights. We went through all of this. Now, we need to learn from these experiences. The state should never make these issues a matter of negotiation. Turkey is a fully democratic country, and the rights of our Kurdish citizens are the same as those of our Turkish citizens—that should be made clear. If the organization or its affiliates choose to engage in political struggle, it should be a political struggle. Politics and political struggle should not be carried out with weapons. They can come to the parliament today, everything is open for discussion. Let them speak there.

After the June 7, 2015 elections, you held meetings with political parties in Turkey as part of efforts to form a new government. During this process, did you have any discussions with the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP)? Did you make any requests for the HDP to be included in the government? If so, how did the HDP leadership respond to your request?

I met with the Peoples' Democratic Party. In fact, despite strong opposition within my own party and from the public, I was the first political leader and prime minister to visit the HDP’s headquarters. I told them I was coming out of respect for the rights of the citizens who voted for the HDP. However, they received me in such a disrespectful and discourteous manner. You know, they said we will offer him some smuggled tea, saying, 'We'll send you some.' That’s why no one should get carried away in such processes, and no one should put their counterpart in a difficult position. I took a serious risk in my political life by doing this. So far, no one else has gone to the HDP’s headquarters. I did this. Why did I do it? Because when I was meeting with all the parties, I didn’t distinguish between the HDP, the CHP, or the MHP. Because they all received votes from the people. I did this, and in return, I was met with extreme discourtesy. I had that meeting on July 15, 2015. Selahattin Demirtas, Sirri Sureyya Onder, and Figen Yuksekdag were there. I said to all of them, 'I see arrogance because of the June 7 elections. You have an excessive sense of self-confidence, and you think the government won’t be formed. If I remain prime minister for even one day, I will not allow this nation to fall into chaos. Be careful, if you take the wrong steps with excessive arrogance and pride, regardless of whether I’m a prime minister without a vote of confidence in parliament, I will do whatever it takes.' A week after that, on July 23, our police officers were martyred.

Now, these are all painful memories, but at the same time, experiences are painful memories. One must properly evaluate the experience. If a process is to take place, everyone must see that no one can get anywhere through violence or terrorism. The Kurdish issue in Turkey has three main pillars. One is Turkey's democratization. The democratization of Turkey is not an issue specific to the Kurds. During the 28th of February, it was the religious people who suffered. In the 70s, it was the leftists who suffered. During the 12th of September coup, everyone suffered. Democratization is a general issue for Turkey. Including the use of Kurdish, democratic rights in Turkey are solved through democracy everywhere.

The second pillar consists of problems specific to the Eastern and Southeastern regions. For example, the appointment of trustees. Although trustees have now spread to Istanbul, they primarily relate to the economic problems in the region. If you were to ask me what the biggest problem in the region is, I would say it's youth unemployment and drug addiction, which are also general problems across Turkey, but particularly in the East and Southeast. So, special measures specific to that region and steps to increase its prosperity and ease the lives of people there are needed.

The third group is the Kurds beyond our borders—our Kurdish brothers in Iraq and Syria. The Kurds on the Syrian border are, just like the Turkmens, our compatriots, I said. When I say ‘compatriots,’ it was understood to mean Turkish compatriots. For the first time, as a Turkmen and a Turk, I said, ‘Compatriotship is not limited to Turkishness.’ Just as Bosnians are our compatriots, they are the same. We help Bosnia and Herzegovina, but Bosnians are not Turks. Kurds are also our compatriots, our historical companions. We can never abandon the Kurdish people in Syria and Iraq to the mercy or guardianship of other countries or global powers. Of course, Iraq and Syria are separate states, and their citizens are already those of those countries. But when Americans come to Syria and approach us, or when the Russians come, claiming to protect the Kurds against Turkey, how will we distinguish between places like Ceylanpinar and Ras al-Ayn? Who is defending themselves against whom? Therefore, we view this issue with such an understanding.

During the periods when you served as both the minister of foreign affairs and the prime minister, one of the most important agenda items for Turkey was the Syria issue. Many of the statements and policies from that time were frequently a subject of criticism. Currently, after the US presidential elections, the possibility of American troops withdrawing from Syria and Rojava is being discussed. There are also comments suggesting that Turkey might begin negotiations with the YPG-PYD and the Rojava Autonomous Administration and reach a settlement. Do you consider this a likely scenario?

It depends on how all the actors will behave. Let me say something principled. Imagine two families of brothers. Even if they argue, they are still in the same house; even if they fight from time to time, they are still in the same house. Solving that is not the job of someone from far away. I would never talk to a Kurdish person in Syria through America. Someone once said that the Kurds don’t have a state in the region. I said, 'The Kurds do have a state. The state of the Kurds is the Republic of Turkey.' I would consider it an insult to speak to a Kurdish person in Rojava through America or Russia. We can sit down and talk directly. The same goes for a Kurdish person in Erbil. That’s why, thank God, whenever we sat down with Mr Masoud Barzani, he always smiled, and it felt like a family reunion—we never negotiated like two separate parties. We didn’t sit like two sides. That was the big problem in Turkey. All the leaders of Kurdistan know this. The flag of the Kurdistan Regional Government would not have been allowed in Turkey, even in Ankara. As the first Foreign Minister, I had it put up. At that time, Bahceli also insulted me. I said, ‘There is the flag of Iraq, and according to the Iraqi constitution, there is a region there. They have their flag, and the Turkish flag is also there—what’s wrong with that?’ I gave an example and, based on that, I invited the Prime Minister of Nakhchivan. The Prime Minister of Nakhchivan came to Ankara. There, we had the flags of Azerbaijan, Nakhchivan, and Turkey. I asked, ‘What’s the difference between this and that?

If Bashar al-Assad hadn’t tried to fight his own people, if there hadn’t been massive massacres, if he hadn’t used chemical weapons, things wouldn’t have ended up like this. Before the events in Syria, in my meeting with Bashar al-Assad on April 6, 2011, one of my demands was the granting of citizenship to the Kurds. It wasn’t exactly a demand, but I said it would be a good idea if you did this. They weren’t giving citizenship to the Kurds; the Kurds didn’t have citizenship there. Now, such a regime later faced great difficulties. If you ask me, I’d say everyone needs to talk to everyone. I’m not saying we shouldn’t talk to Syria. Especially after what happened in Gaza, after Israel’s expansionist policies, everyone in the region needs to communicate with each other so we can get out of this predicament. No one should exclude anyone.

Another important agenda item for Turkey is the work on a new Constitution. Especially as the parliament begins the new legislative year, this debate takes place every year. However, the discussions tend to focus more on the first four articles and the provisions related to citizenship, and after a while, they end up going nowhere. Do you believe that a new constitution can be made in the new term?

I have opposed the 12 September Constitution both in my academic life and my political life. The 12 September Constitution is the constitution of a junta, a military coup regime. It is inadequate when it comes to fundamental rights and freedoms. Then, many amendments were made, and it became somewhat more democratic. But the Presidential Government System has made this constitution even more distorted and worse. Therefore, I strongly oppose the Presidential Government System, and I do not believe it is a democratic system. The presidential system is absolutely not the solution. The balance between the legislature, judiciary, and executive has not been preserved. There are no checks and balances mechanisms. Therefore, we need a new constitution. However, if the new constitution is presented in such a way that the current government says, 'You will not touch the Presidential Government System, but we will discuss other matters,' then that will not be a new constitution.

I believe the debate over the first four articles is a symbolic debate. It’s not a real debate. No Turk or Kurd would be disturbed by the fact that the capital is Ankara or that the national anthem is the Independence Anthem [Istiklal Marsi]. But they turn it into such an ideological divide that it prevents any changes to the remaining authoritarian articles of the constitution. However, what we need is a very simple, straightforward constitution that respects the rights and freedoms of all 85 million citizens.

In the near future, you will visit the Kurdistan Region, including Duhok and Erbil. On this occasion, I would like to ask: How do you assess the current relations between the Kurdistan Region and Turkey compared to the period of your tenure as Prime Minister? Also, as you know, Erbil is a historic city, and I’m curious to know which places in Erbil you are most interested in visiting? Of course, Kurdistan has a rich gastronomy, and we have a rich culinary culture as the region of Kurdistan. Which dishes from Erbil will you prefer?

Of course, I don’t know all the details of the current relations. I don’t want to be unfair. But it saddens me to see that the relations are not as intense as they used to be in the past. By 'in the past,' I mean during our time, when people like Mr Nechirvan and Mr Masoud used to visit four or five times a year. There was a period, especially after the 2017-2018 referendum, when visits almost stopped. I hope things improve in the future. I’m not saying things need to improve just because we are involved, but they should improve. Both the Kurdistan Regional Government and Turkey have a responsibility in this regard. When I go, I hope to meet with everyone. I have connections with Mr Masoud, Mr Nechirvan, Mr Masrour, and also Qubad Talabani and Bafel Talabani. We all have a shared history. I’ll meet with them. I’ll see the situation there up close. But history and geography force us to establish strong and good relations. In this geography, either you fight or you reconcile. If you fight, no one will prevail over the other. Everyone suffers. But if you reconcile, everyone benefits, and the benefits increase exponentially.

I really love Erbil. In fact, I told my wife about it. She didn’t come with me when I went to Erbil, unfortunately, and maybe she won’t be able to come this time either. Yesterday, while speaking at a party here, I said, when you look at Erbil from afar, you might think it’s a tense city or a different kind of place. But if you go to its bazaar, to its covered market, it’s no different from the markets in Konya or Istanbul. I went to the market, and everyone said, ‘Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, welcome, Mr Ahmet.’ Everyone follows Turkey. Almost everyone knows some Turkish. It’s no different from our markets in Mardin or even Konya. So, I would definitely want to visit that classic old market. The Sultan Muzafferiye Minaret, as I mentioned, is a special symbol of both the Turkmen and the Kurds, and of course, Erbil Castle. Erbil Castle is still one of the oldest castles in history. The Erbil Clock Tower. All of them are beautiful. Unfortunately, I’ve only visited in a rush, usually for official matters, and haven’t been able to go just for a few days of vacation. I went during one Ramadan. I got to see a little of the surroundings.

I had the longest but also the most difficult meals of my life with the late [Jalal] Talabani. He was a great eater. Everyone knows that. He would place his napkin or handkerchief like this, and he would insist on feeding his guests as well. We also had wonderful meals and treats from Mr Masoud. Of course, there’s the famous Erbil kebab. But the Dolma, especially cucumber Dolma, I had for the first time in Erbil. I’ve tasted many dishes from Erbil’s traditional cuisine, like the Erbil-specific kubba soup. They’re very similar to those in our region. For example, biryani. There’s really not much difference between Siirt and Erbil, but there are things unique to Erbil. For instance, the Dolmas are more diverse. Stuffed cucumbers, for example, are not something we commonly have. Its gastronomy is as rich as the whole Middle East. I can also be happy without eating, though. So, I’m going there to eat ideas. To get ideas, to give ideas, to win hearts, and to give hearts, of course

• SHARE ON
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Whatsapp
• Share on Telegram
• Share on Viber
• Share on Messenger