These are important days as far as the resolution process is concerned. Eye-opening developments are taking place that allow us to understand who really wants a solution and who is creating impediments for a solution.

Qandil is hindering any announcement about the laying down of arms, even if it is at the expense of leaving Abdullah Öcalan in the lurch. (Qandil is the armed mountain base of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, in northern Iraq.)

The HDP (Peoples’ Democratic Party) is not sharing Öcalan’s message with the public since it has opted to side with Qandil.

A crucial stage had been reached in the resolution process via ongoing talks.

Consensus had been reached on demands made toward facilitating a solution.

What were these demands?

1-About ill convicts who number around 50.

2- The changing of convicts housed on İmralı. (İmralı is the island prison where Öcalan is serving a life sentence.)

3- The creation of a monitoring body.

The establishing of a monitoring body, as implied by its name, was meant to be a development that would allow the “monitoring” of steps taken toward a solution. There are global examples of monitoring bodies observing various stages of a resolution process such as withdrawal of armed members and the laying down of arms.

Even toward the end of 2012 when a schedule had been drawn up for the withdrawal of armed members, Qandil had postponed such a withdrawal to May 2013 citing winter conditions. It had announced that the first stage of this withdrawal process would commence on May 8, 2013.

This time, too, when the topic of withdrawal was brought to the agenda in relation to the creation of a monitoring committee, Qandil provided the same reasoning, saying “it couldn’t start withdrawal due to winter conditions.” Moreover, a suggestion was put forward stating “if they are going to abandon their arms and withdraw, emphasis should be placed on disarming them in Turkey instead of focusing on withdrawal.” The suggestion was deemed worth pursuing. But it needed a statement citing the determination to act on it. Isn’t the aim of the resolution process for the PKK to end its armed struggle?

Öcalan expressed his determination in favor of the PKK renouncing its armed struggle.

He gave a written text to the HDP delegation that visited him on Feb. 4. That text states:

“The time for weapons is behind us. The Kurdish movement will continue on its path via democratic politics. During Nevruz I will call for the congress to assemble, stating that the PKK is about to lay down arms.”

But both the government and HDP agreed that Öcalan’s expression of such determination wouldn’t suffice on its own. The government and AK Parti (Justice and Development Party) representatives under the leadership of Deputy Prime Minister Yalçın Akdoğan, who is in charge of overseeing the resolution process, would also issue a joint declaration citing their determination in this regard as well. The text in question had been prepared and the signatories to it had been identified. It was even agreed that the statement would be issued in multiple languages.

While the venue where the statement would be issued in Ankara was being readied, Qandil vetoed Öcalan’s message.

This is how once again Öcalan’s message, which was similar to the one issued during Nevruz 2013 stating “the time for armed struggle is at an end and a period of political struggle has commenced,” wasn’t made public due to opposition from Qandil for the second time in two years.

So, what has the PKK movement been discussing with the government for two years? Wasn’t the resolution process based on the PKK renouncing armed struggle and the government in turn creating the legal grounds for it to engage in a democratic struggle? Wasn’t it based on the reasoning that a solution to the Kurdish problem should not be sought by resorting to arms but by engaging in civilian politics?

Qandil’s resistance to Öcalan’s call to lay down arms needs to be analyzed well.

1-Qandil is conducting an operation against Öcalan, the PKK’s leader who is still alive. In this manner, Qandil, which bears arms, is shifting Öcalan toward a ceremonial leadership position instead of letting him be the leader of an organization.

Qandil by obstructing Öcalan’s call for the laying down of arms is pushing him toward being a ceremonial leader who has no executive authority and limited influence on the organization.

This will of course have the following consequence. If Öcalan has no influence over the organization, then why should the state hold talks with him.

2-The talks being held as part of the resolution process are aimed at something. Are these talks being held for disarmament? Do the reasons stated by Qandil, which impede peace, have any resonance with the logic of seeking a resolution?

If Mount Etna was to erupt, they would cite that as a reason to obstruct a solution.

3- Qandil doesn’t want the HDP to cross the electoral threshold. It wants to prevent the strengthening of the political wing so that it does not create an obstacle for the armed struggle.

Selahattin Demirtaş managed to attain the most successful result achieved by the Kurdish political movement in its history during the presidential election with his “hailing from Turkey” project. The HDP, which plans to attract votes from western Turkey as well in order to pass the electoral threshold, could have sought votes in western Turkey in a climate of peace where the armed struggle was abandoned and by showing it was sincere about its thesis of “hailing from Turkey.”

In Turkey, voter preferences become clear three months prior to polling day. The HDP’s hand would have been strengthened if an announcement concerning disarmament were to be made in February or March. This option was not preferred. Qandil opted to keep the threat of violence hanging over politics. This situation means that in western Turkey the HDP will be considered to be in the shadows of the PKK, which is an armed terrorist organization that has spilled blood. How will the HDP “hail from Turkey” in that case? You choose not to abandon arms on the one hand, while saying you are a party for Turkey on the other. Where is the sincerity in this? Won’t they then ask the man if he is going to be a party for Turkey with a weapon in his hands?

The HDP made its choice to line up alongside Qandil, which maintains it stance of continuing its armed struggle, instead of İmralı by not making public Öcalan’s call to disarm. It has, in this manner, placed itself in a situation where it is a political party that prefers an armed struggle.

Whereas the resolution process had provided the PKK, and its political extension, the HDP, an honorable way out in the name of peace. Qandil, however, didn’t allow this. Two questions need answering at this point.

1-Why isn’t the HDP making public the message it was handed by Öcalan?

2- Is Qandil bringing Öcalan’s leadership into question by preventing the message from being made public and by neutralizing the call to disarm?