Can Baydarol
Peace is a difficult word. Everyone wants it, but it is impossible to achieve. Those who believe in it and devote themselves to it are forced to struggle with problems they never imagined. If those who strive for peace have a bad track record, those who want to bring peace may end up being accused of treason.
Well, for those of us who don’t know much and are merely observing the current process from the outside, all we can do is hope for the best. At the moment, we are closely monitoring the statements made by Tom Barrack, the U.S. Ambassador to Ankara and Special Representative for Syria, and we will continue to do so as far as we understand.
For those who have been following developments on our southeastern border for a long time, the US has provided significant support to PYD/YPG forces in line with Israel’s wishes and has armed them to a great extent. In this context, the PKK’s statement that it will lay down its arms and enter into a peace process with Turkey is not credible; it is merely a show. Barack’s moves, highlighting the importance of Syria’s territorial integrity and the fact that U.S. policies toward Israel have reached an “enough is enough” level, are also part of this show. Should Turkey believe this show? Or should it turn a blind eye to what is happening as part of this perception management?
This is precisely where the role that the CHP will assume is of great importance.
The ruling party, which is made up of Turks, Kurds, and Arabs, or in other words, has a “ummah” ideology or, as it’s been called lately, a “neo-Ottoman” view, is trying to get people on board with a new constitution that fits this view. At the same time, it’s inviting the main opposition party, the CHP, to join them.
Naturally, the CHP cannot take this side; it goes against its very nature. However, this is where the difficulty begins. Opposing peace is not politically acceptable. The CHP, which has spent years developing projects for the peaceful resolution of the Kurdish issue, will now be faced with the question: “Peace has come to our doorstep—are you going to veto it?” Or will it risk becoming part of an Israel/US-backed show?
So far, Özgür Özel’s administration has preferred to remain in limbo. If it chooses to play the veto card, could the option of dismantling the CHP remain on the table? Will the law be used as part of this dismantling process? What we have seen so far suggests that this possibility should not be dismissed.
So, is it a bad thing for Turkey’s territory to expand to include parts of Syria and perhaps Iraq?
Especially the idea of Turkey gaining control over the energy resources in this region may sound appealing. A perception management strategy tied to the notion of “Turkey becoming increasingly wealthy and escaping the economic crisis” could play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the elections. However, it is also clear that the most important milestone on this path will be the new constitution.
Turkey’s territory will expand, and it will no longer remain a nation-state with borders defined by the “Misak-ı Milli” (National Pact). At this point, we recall Barrack’s words targeting the Treaty of Lausanne, and his criticism of the conditions imposed by imperial powers forces us to smile bitterly. It is as if the United States is not the imperial power shaping today’s Middle East geography.
Well, if Turkey becomes a federal structure and is faced with a constitution appropriate to that structure, could those who are so happy today find themselves facing the threat of division tomorrow? Is it possible that such a constitution could be accepted?
These are very difficult questions to answer.
Are you one of those who say, “We won’t live that long anyway, let our children and grandchildren worry about it?”