This Process Does Not Resolve The Kurdish National Question!

 

Interview

Question: Hello. First of all, could you please introduce yourself?

Answer: – My name is Özgür Aren. I am a member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the TKP-ML.

Q: You have announced that your party held its 2nd Congress and that you adopted resolutions on many important issues, primarily the changes taking place in Turkey’s socio-economic structure. What would you like to say about the developments that have taken place since the Congress?

A: Certainly. We can globally say that two main issues have come to the fore both in the world and in Turkey following the 2nd Congress. The first of these was the imperialists’ preparations for a new war of partition, a trend we had already identified at our 2nd Congress as the direction of developments. The period following the Congress witnessed developments that reinforced our party’s assessment. As can be seen in the aggression of the US and Israel towards Iran, these preparations have evolved into open attacks and conflicts.

Another concrete indication that the imperialist capitalist system is preparing for a new war of partition can be seen in the steps taken by Donald Trump’s presidency, particularly in parallel with the waning dominance of US imperialism on the international stage. In particular, the increase in military spending by British and EU imperialist powers, under the guise of “defence” and led by US imperialism, can be interpreted as preparation for a war of partition. The decisions taken at the most recent NATO summit held in Ankara on 6–7 July also point to this preparation.

Whilst the US and British imperialists are the main instigators of the partition war, the Chinese and Russian imperialists are currently adopting a more defensive stance. However, they too are preparing for war through the alliances they are forging and the military build-up they are undertaking. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the war, now entering its fifth year, are not independent of the attrition war waged against Russia by EU imperialists—mostly by the UK—via NATO, using Ukraine as a proxy. The decisions taken at NATO’s recent Ankara summit signal the determination of Western imperialists to continue the war against Russia through NATO.

Furthermore, the participation of South Asian countries in the same NATO summit demonstrates that the strategy of encirclement and preparation for war against China—which US imperialism has defined as its primary enemy in its strategic documents—continues. Indeed, the US’s attack on Iran and its objective of regime change are not independent of the Iranian reactionary state’s relations with China and Russia.

The signs that the imperialists are preparing for a new war of partition are not limited to the military aggression war and arms race taking place on the international stage. In addition, the imperialists have embarked on a campaign of annihilation and liquidation against every force that is in conflict with the capitalist system to one degree or another, and which does not fully submit to their system. Developments ranging from the crushing of the Palestinian national resistance to the disarmament of Hezbollah, and the elimination of the revolutionary dynamism of the Kurdish national movement—thereby reducing it to a level acceptable to the capitalist system—must be assessed within this context.

More specifically, it is evident that the policy US imperialism is attempting to implement in the Middle East is to force all military forces outside the central state armies to join the central armies. The aim is both to dismantle the relatively independent political and military structures of these organizations and to exploit, for its own ends, the contradictions that would arise when forces that have at times fought one another are brought together under a single umbrella. We are faced with a different version of the “divide and rule” policy. It appears that the US, having suffered a significant and largely exposed loss of hegemony, is pursuing such a policy in the medium term as a means of recovery.

In parallel with these developments, one of the most significant indicators that the imperialists are preparing for a new war of partition is the increase in massacres and liquidation attacks targeting the communist movement on the international stage. In particular, the comprehensive campaign of massacre and liquidation attack directed against the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA), led by the Communist Party of India (Maoist), in its struggle for the New Democratic Revolution must be assessed in this light. This fascist aggression against the New Democratic Revolution struggle in India—one of the most advanced fronts of the communist movement—must not be assessed as independent from the imperialists’ preparations for the war of partition.

Similar aggression is also being directed against the New Democratic Revolution struggle in the Philippines, led by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA). Similarly, the fact that the fascist Turkish state carried out arrest campaigns directly targeting our party in the run-up to 1 May and the NATO summit in Ankara on 6–7 July should not be regarded as a coincidence.

These attacks by the imperialists and the reactionary forces collaborating with them against the New Democratic Revolution struggles led by the Maoists are extremely deliberate. This is because these struggles, led by Maoist parties, have emerged as concrete proof of the proletariat’s and the world’s oppressed peoples’ persistence in the struggle for revolution and socialism following the setbacks experienced in socialism. These Maoist parties, including our own, have positioned themselves as the most advanced bastions of the struggle for revolution and socialism against imperialist-capitalist global reaction on the international stage. Furthermore, they have persisted in the practice of revolutionary armed struggle, which is defined as the greatest threat by the imperialists and reactionaries.

It is precisely for this reason that, whilst international reaction is preparing for a new imperialist war of partition, it has turned to a campaign of annihilation and liquidation against the communist movement, which it defines as its principal enemy. For the international bourgeoisie knows from its own historical experience, both before and after the First and Second Imperialist Wars of Partition, that either revolutions prevent wars or wars give rise to revolutions. For this reason, the just wars waged by the proletariat and the oppressed peoples against the unjust wars of international reaction are treated as targets to be eliminated as a matter of priority.

Consequently, these developments taking place on the international stage and in our region cannot be assessed independently of the intensifying and hardening of contradictions—a product of the crisis and competition within the imperialist capitalist system—and the increasing preparations for imperialist wars of partition.

Q: What is the second significant development you mentioned in the context of these preparations?

A: Certainly. The second significant development is the call for “Peace and a Democratic Society” by A. Öcalan, leader of the Kurdish National Movement in our country, and the Turkish state’s initiative—dubbed “Turkey without Terrorism” under the guise of “strengthening the inner front”—which is generally referred to as “the process”. It represents the decision to end the oppressed Kurdish nation’s half-century-long armed struggle against the Turkish state and the shift towards continuing the struggle in the democratic arena. On this basis, following A. Öcalan’s call, the PKK dissolved itself at its 12th Congress and declared that it had strategically brought the armed struggle to an end.

This development must be taken into account in our region in terms of the revolutionary struggle and, in particular, the armed struggle. We have explained our party’s views on A. Öcalan’s call and the subsequent developments to our people from the very outset. At this point, I don't want to go into this at length again. These developments, particularly the Turkish state’s approach to the issue, confirm our party’s assessments of the process. The Turkish state defines the issue as ‘terrorism’ and regards the elimination of the Kurdish national movement as its primary objective. The ‘framework law’ that has been drafted also confirms our view. Whilst the Kurdish national movement speaks of integration and democratic politics, the Turkish state – let alone democratic politics – is promising a “political ban” on those who lay down their arms by enacting legislation similar to the “repentance laws” it passed in the past.

Despite all the steps taken and concessions made by the Kurdish movement, the release of A. Öcalan and his ability to freely convey his thoughts to the people are not being accepted. This is a situation which our party has objected to and deemed incorrect from the very outset of the process. Our party maintains that, regardless of the views put forward by A. Öcalan, what must be done – or the most correct “moral stance” – is for A. Öcalan to be allowed to defend his views freely and without any state interference. The process currently underway, the statements made, the “meeting notes” and so on, create uncertainty regarding who said what and who defended what, leading to the emergence of an atmosphere of mistrust.

Nevertheless, we must take into account the statements made by the structures of the Kurdish national movement. These statements and the practical stances adopted hold significant importance both at present and for the period ahead. For example, the developments in the Rojava Revolution, the anniversary of which we celebrated a month ago, or the United Revolutionary Movement of the Peoples (HBDH), in which our party is also involved alongside the Kurdish national movement, are directly affected by these developments. Consequently, the current process is significant and contains developments that will shape the future, both for Turkey and for our region.

At this point, as I mentioned earlier, our party’s views on the developments and debates that followed A. Öcalan’s call have been shared to the people. We do not believe that the current process has resolved the Kurdish national question. We do not believe that the most fundamental rights of the Kurdish nation, stemming from its status as a nation, have been recognized. From our party’s perspective, it is clear that in a situation where even the ‘Right to Free Self-Determination’ of the Kurdish nation—a principled stance within the context of the Kurdish national question—has not been brought to the table, there can be no talk of a genuine solution. At best, what will occur is a reduction in the violence of the Kurdish national contradiction. Moreover, it is clear that an “alliance” in which the privileges of the oppressor nation towards the Kurdish nation are defended with fascist determination will not eliminate the national contradiction. The national contradiction, including the Kurdish national question, will continue to exist in our region and will remain one of the agenda items of the People’s Democratic Revolution.

On the other hand, in line with the new direction adopted by the Kurdish national movement following its strategic shift, the common ground for struggle with the Kurdish national movement to protect the gains achieved by the Kurdish nation in terms of language, culture or at the local level will continue. Of course, the stance the Kurdish national movement adopts in line with its new direction will be decisive in this regard.

Nevertheless, it is clear that as long as the Kurdish national movement stands on a democratic base and maintains its alliance with left-wing socialist forces, it will naturally continue to uphold the de facto legitimate line of struggle.

The Rojava Revolution has experienced a significant breakdown

Q: In your speech just now, you mentioned the Rojava Revolution and the developments taking place. It is known that your party and the People’s Army have participated in the Rojava Revolution, and that you have suffered martyrs in this struggle, foremost among them your party cadre Nubar Ozanyan. What is your evaluation of the process unfolding in Syria in general and in Rojava in particular?

A: Our party’s views on the overall situation in Syria have been made clear to the people on various occasions and in various forms. It is clear that the Assad regime in Syria has been overthrown and power has been handed over to the Salafi-jihadist HTS mercenary. The move to overthrow the Assad regime, in which Western imperialists—led by the US and the UK—actively utilized regional reactionary forces such as Turkish fascism, has borne result. The imperialists are now taking steps to reap the rewards of their “investments”. Turkish fascism, for its part, seeks to capitalize on the crumbs that will fall to it in the Syrian market as a reward for its unconditional service to the imperialists.

It was clear that the main motivation of Turkish fascism in Syria was the gains made by the Kurdish nation in Northern Syria, and particularly in Rojava. The Turkish state viewed any status gained by the Kurdish nation in Rojava as a significant threat to its own survival and has utilized all its resources and capabilities to liquidate the Autonomous Administration of North-Eastern Syria. It is clear that it has succeeded in this regard at this stage.

Whilst our party shares the view that the Rojava Revolution has experienced a significant breakdown, it is currently discussing the ongoing process and developments internally. Our party will share its assessment of the Rojava Revolution and the developments in Northern Syria with our people in the coming period.

Q: Earlier in your speech, you mentioned the HBDH alliance, of which your party is a part alongside the Kurdish national movement and other revolutionary organizations. What would you like to say on this subject?

A: Our party is one of the founders of the HBDH alliance. It was clear that this alliance was an extremely important organizing in terms of the revolution in Turkey and Kurdistan of Turkey. Our party has reaffirmed this view at both its 1st and 2nd Congresses.

However, at this stage, it is a fact that a member—which was among the founders of the HBDH organizing and constituted a significant component of it—has dissolved itself and declared an end to armed struggle. In these circumstances, it would be more accurate to redefine the HBDH organizing in light of the new phase. This is because there are significant and decisive differences—at least in the context of the orientation of the Kurdish national movement—between the period in which the HBDH organizing was established and the current period. The Kurdish national movement defines its own orientation as a strategic shift. This situation points to a strategic divergence from the objectives of the period in which the HBDH organizing was established. Consequently, the HBDH organizing must be addressed and assessed in the light of this new phase.

Our party’s position on the HBDH organizing is clear. The HBDH organizing has fulfilled its mission. Therefore, just as with all short and long-term unities of action and alliances —past and future—it must be declared that the HBDH organizing has played its part and has run its course. This is the correct stance. Telling the truth to the people is one of our Party’s fundamental principles.

This approach of ours must, of course, be assessed independently of the debate over whether or not to participate in any potential unities of action and alliances that may be formed in line with the new direction of the Kurdish national movement.

Naturally, within the new orientation of the Kurdish national movement, we support the democratic demands of the Kurdish nation. Naturally, in the new phase of the Kurdish national movement, we stand behind the democratic struggles of the Kurdish nation, prioritizing the interests of the Kurdish people above all. There is no issue here. What we regard as problematic are the claims that the Kurdish national question has been resolved and the views put forward regarding armed struggle. Our party does not subscribe to these views and does not consider them correct.

Class oppression of the Kurdish people continues unabated

Q: From what you have said, should we understand that your party views the ‘process’ unfolding between the Turkish state and the Kurdish national movement with scepticism, and that, fundamentally, there is no solution to the Kurdish national question as is claimed?

A: Certainly. It is not just our party but the Kurdish people themselves who view the developments referred to as the “process” with scepticism. It is only natural that anyone who knows the Turkish state should think in this way. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that the so-called ‘process’ does not contain a solution to the Kurdish national question. The fact that the “framework law” prepared as a “solution” to the Kurdish issue is modeled on the law enacted following the Sheikh Said Uprising, and that the law promises those who lay down their arms in response to A. Öcalan’s call for “democratic struggle” “supervised release” (which effectively means they can be arrested at any moment) and “ban on political activity” and so on—points not so much to the aim of a “solution” as to the aim of control and liquidation.

In parallel, statements such as the promise to establish “rehabilitation and employment centers” for those who lay down their arms alongside the “solution” law to the Kurdish issue are reminiscent of the policies the Turkish state has implemented following past Kurdish national uprisings. The Turkish state does not merely view Kurds who rise up for their national rights as “criminals”; it also regards them as “sick” in need of rehabilitation.

It is clear that, taken together, all these statements, the steps taken and the law enacted do not point to a solution to the Kurdish question.

Our party’s views on national issues in general, and the Kurdish national question in particular, are well known. It must not be forgotten that, during the period when İbrahim Kaypakkaya founded our party—at a time when the very existence of the Kurds, let alone whether they constituted a nation, was being debated, and when the Kurdish national movement had not yet emerged in such an organized manner—he declared that the Kurds in our region constituted a nation and, furthermore, that they possessed the Right to Free Self-Determination, that is, the right to secede and establish a separate state. Our party still upholds this view.

In the context of the national contradiction, our party supports the democratic struggle of the oppressed nation against the oppressing nation. In this context, it is important to correctly define the national question in general and the Kurdish national question in particular. To put it briefly, I can say the following:

Today, alongside Kurdish workers, the semi-proletariat, the poor and middle peasants, and the urban petty bourgeoisie, the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landowners also face national oppression. These classes form the ranks of the Kurdish national movement. Each class within these ranks, which have united against all forms of national oppression, naturally has its own specific aims and objectives. At this stage, the fact that “existence has been recognized”, as is claimed, does not and cannot change this reality.

In the national contradiction in general, and in the Kurdish national contradiction in particular, the oppression directed at the working people of the oppressed nations and nationalities is two-pronged. Firstly, there is class oppression directed at the working class for class aims, primarily to exploit them further and suppress the class struggle; secondly, there is the policy of national oppression generally applied by the oppressing nation, for national aims, to almost all classes of the oppressed nations and nationalities.

Our Party distinguishes between these two forms of oppression. It does so because, for example, the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landowners oppose the second type of oppression whilst resolutely defending the first. Our Party opposes both forms of oppression and is fighting against them. Consequently, to eliminate national oppression, we support the struggle of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and small landowners against the oppressing nation; but, on the other hand, we maintain that it is necessary to struggle against them as well in order to eliminate class oppression.

In short, it is of the utmost importance to distinguish between the class oppression inflicted upon the Kurdish people and the national oppression inflicted upon the Kurdish nation. As I mentioned earlier, just as the content and forms of these two types of oppression differ, so too do their aims. Consequently, distinguishing between these two forms of oppression is of decisive importance in terms of adopting the correct political stance.

In conclusion, as with every national movement, the Kurdish national movement has two qualities. This is inherent in the nature of the matter. Firstly, there is the general democratic content directed against the national oppression, privileges, the privilege of state-building, tyranny and oppression of the Turkish bourgeoisie and landlords; secondly, there is the reactionary content aimed at strengthening Kurdish nationalism, thereby realizing the supremacy and privileges of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords.

From its foundation to the present day, our Party, against the tyranny and privileges of the Turkish ruling classes, has unequivocally and unconditionally supported the general democratic content of the Kurdish national movement, which aims to abolish all forms of national oppression to achieve full equality of rights for nations and nationalities. It has unconditionally supported and defended not only the Kurdish nation but also the movements of other oppressed nationalities pursuing the same objectives.

At the same time, our Party has remained entirely neutral in the struggles waged by the bourgeoisie and landlords belonging to various nations and nationalities to secure their own supremacy and class interests. Our party has never supported the tendency within the Kurdish national movement aimed at strengthening Kurdish nationalism; rather, it has fought against tendencies and discourses that reinforce bourgeois nationalism. It has categorically refused to support the struggle waged by the Kurdish bourgeoisie and landlords for their own class interests and privileges.

In summary, our party has confined itself to supporting the general democratic content within the Kurdish national movement, but has not gone beyond that.

At the current stage, the Kurdish national movement is framed within the claim that the “existence of the Kurdish nation” is recognized – a claim which is itself debatable, as the Kurdish nation is not recognized as a nation. At most, it is referred to as a cultural identity within the concept of the “ummah”.—It has declared that, in the Kurdish nation’s struggle over the past half-century against the oppression, tyranny and privileges of the Turkish ruling classes, it has adopted a strategic shift and has strategically brought an end to armed struggle. As a solution, a “Turkish-Kurdish Alliance” is being discussed.

Leaving aside the debate as to whether this thesis constitutes a genuine solution within the context of the national question, from our party’s perspective—as I mentioned earlier—the class oppression inflicted upon the Kurdish people is assessed separately from the national oppression inflicted upon the Kurdish nation. Class oppression directed at the Kurdish people continues unabated. Indeed, it could be argued that the Turkish state’s policy of national oppression against the Kurdish nation—manifested through killings, arrests, forced displacement and so on—is exacerbating class oppression. It is by no means a coincidence that the regions with the highest levels of unemployment and poverty in Turkey and Kurdistan of Turkey are precisely those within Kurdistan of Turkey. This is also linked to the way in which national oppression further deepens class oppression. Consequently, whilst discussions on the “solution” to the Kurdish national question continue, the policy of class oppression is continuing at full speed. Indeed, the class interests of the Kurdish bourgeoisie and the landlords have also played a role in the continuation and deepening of this policy of oppression. Consequently, from our party’s perspective, it is clear that there has been no change in the policy of class oppression—which is the fundamental basis of both national and class oppression—within the geography of Kurdistan; indeed, in parallel with the social and economic developments taking place, class oppression has deepened even further.

Our party is fully aware that within the national question, national contradiction and class contradictions are intertwined. It is our view that what the leadership of the national movement is currently promoting as a “solution” does not resolve the Kurdish national question; that the Kurdish national bourgeoisie is seeking a “solution”, particularly under the influence of international developments; and that the Turkish ruling classes currently view the issue as the “elimination of terrorism” and are taking practical steps accordingly. This “solution” undoubtedly fails to eliminate the policy of class oppression directed against the Kurdish people and even serves to reproduce it in other forms.

This is the contradiction our party is primarily concerned with, and the resolution of this contradiction is among the tasks of the People’s Democratic Revolution under our party’s leadership.

The arrest of revolutionaries is being portrayed as legitimate

Q: In your speech a short while ago, you referred to the NATO meeting held in Ankara on 6–7 July. Prior to this meeting, the Turkish state carried out an intensive campaign of detentions and arrests. In this fascist campaign of arrests, the Turkish state singled out revolutionary parties, foremost among them your party, the TKP-ML, as targets. What would you like to say in response to this fascist aggression and wave of arrests, which were carried out under the pretext of targeting your party?

A: Yes, first of all, from our party’s perspective, being subjected to this fascist aggression is nothing new. Given the nature of the Turkish state and, in particular, its style of conducting politics, we must state that this aggression directed at the masses comes as no surprise to our party. What is surprising is the stance of those who define themselves as left-wing, progressive or opposition in the face of the Turkish state’s fascist aggression.

However, before responding to this stance and your question, it must be emphasized once again that the events and statements made during and after the NATO summit have demonstrated that Western imperialists are preparing for a new war of partition; that NATO—the imperialists’ organization for occupation and aggression—will be actively utilized in this war of partition; and that the Turkish state is, once again, ready to serve as a useful tool for imperialist interests, particularly in our region.

Consequently, the fascist Turkish state, in order not to fail in its service to its imperialist masters and to demonstrate that it is highly useful from the perspective of imperialist interests, has sought to show that it has not raised the slightest objection against the imperialists or NATO, their organization for occupation and war. In their own words, they have perpetrated acts of terror against the people “to prove that Turkey is not a country associated with terrorism”. They have not hesitated for a single moment to attack their own people in order to ensure they do not fall short in serving their imperialist masters.

Given that we are faced with a state structure that is a semi-colony of the imperialists and an enemy of the people, it was a foreseeable situation that aggression against the people would be escalated days before the NATO summit. Because the Turkish Republic is not only a fascist state structure. Politic, too, is conducted through fascist methods. Let alone revolutionary violence; even the slightest objection or dissenting stance is met with fascist attacks.

Indeed, the fact that fascist attacks has escalated to this extent is also linked to the absence of revolutionary violence.

When one considers that the Turkish ruling classes have resorted to arrests and imprisonment even in their internal factional struggles—and have even, in the past, hanged their own prime minister and ministers—it is clear that those who attack their own class are, and will continue to be, engaged in fascist aggression against the people and revolutionaries. From this perspective, there is nothing surprising about the attacks directed at the people in the run-up to the NATO summit.

What is surprising, as I mentioned earlier, is the stance of those who call themselves left-wing or opposition in the face of this arrest campaign. Undoubtedly, during these attacks, the bourgeois media displayed its familiar class stance. The fact that members of an organization called the “TEMA Foundation” were among those subjected to the Turkish state’s fascist terror and arrest campaign has been sensationalized, with headlines such as “The Maoist Aunts’ Organization” appearing. Furthermore, whilst the gravity of the arrests of TEMA Foundation members—cited as being carried out on NATO grounds—was emphasized, the aim was to create a narrative suggesting that the arrests of revolutionaries were “legitimate”.

At the same time, the approach adopted by certain circles that describe themselves as left-wing, progressive and opposition in the face of the Turkish state’s fascist aggression prior to the NATO summit is also noteworthy. The fascist Turkish state’s arrest campaign has been attempted to be explained as stemming from “AKP reaction”. This approach points to a confusion regarding the Turkish state’s relationship with imperialism and its nature.

It must not be forgotten that the Turkish ruling classes and their state apparatus have, from the day of their establishment to the present, been built upon collaboration with imperialist capital and hostility towards the people. For this reason, the ruling-class clique in power is compelled, on the one hand, to serve imperialist capital, safeguard its interests in the Turkish market and, in return for this role, secure a certain share of the spoils of exploitation and plunder; and, on the other hand, to exert repression on the people in order to ensure the security of both imperialist capital’s and its own interests. For this reason, the fascist Turkish state treats everyone as a “potential terrorist”. This is an objective reality. The century-long history of the republic is replete with countless practical examples of this.

Consequently, NATO’s aggressive stance towards the people in the run-up to its summit is consistent with the nature of the regime and came as no surprise to our party. In our region, the anti-imperialist struggle is inextricably linked to the anti-fascist struggle. To reduce the anti-imperialist struggle to mere rhetoric and practice is to ignore the fact that the Turkish state is a semi-colony of imperialism and, moreover, a member of NATO. This situation points to a contradiction: protesting against NATO whilst, at the same time, carrying the flag of a NATO member state.

On the other hand, we must also point out that, despite all the aggression and the terror of arrests by the imperialists and the fascist Turkish state, the masses have protested against NATO. This indicates that, despite all the efforts of the imperialists and the fascist Turkish state, they have been unable to suppress the masses’ anti-imperialist and anti-fascist struggle.

It is this dynamic that our Party values and aims to learn from and unite around.

Q: To conclude, what would you like to say about your Party’s direction following the 2nd Congress?

A: Our party is continuing its activities in line with the orientation set out at the 2nd Congress. As is well known, our 2nd Congress highlighted the threat of imperialist war on the international stage and emphasized the necessity of organizing and struggling against this threat in various forms and with different content, both internationally and within our country. We can state that steps consistent with this orientation have been taken following the 2nd Congress.

Internationally, we have undertaken initiatives both to strengthen the organization of the International Communist Movement and to establish anti-imperialist and anti-fascist alliances and fronts against the threat of imperialist war.

In our country, we have adopted a practical approach of acting in solidarity with the broadest possible sections of society, as exemplified by the protest against the recent NATO summit.

Our Party remains determined to confront the coming period and continue the struggle alongside the broadest possible sections of society with whom we can unite and act in common. This approach is consistent with the orientation of the 2nd Congress.

To this end, we maintain our approach of acting together and intensifying our joint struggle with various parties and organizations within the Turkish revolutionary movement on the basis of unities of action.

From our Party’s perspective, our organizational orientation—in line with the direction set by the 2nd Congress—continues, starting with those closest to us. We believe this orientation is of fundamental importance, particularly in countering the attacks we will face in the coming period.

To quote Comrade İbrahim, “difficult but glorious days of struggle lie ahead”. All our preparations are being made with this in mind.

Q: Thank you for answering our questions.

A: We thank you for giving us this opportunity.

Link: https://www.tkpml.com/this-process-does-not-resolve-the-kurdish-national-question/?swcfpc=1