Kenan Ayas’ statement, regarding the expert report of Dr. Seufert, which the German Court did not allow him to complete

Throughout the judicial process against the Kurdish politician Kenan Ayas, from the Larnaca District Court to the High Court and of course the High District Court of Hamburg, there has been a violation of his right to defend himself. One of these moments was the refusal of the president of the court allow Kenan Ayas to complete his statement regarding the expert report of Dr. Günter Seufert, a report concerning the Kurdish issue and the conflict between the Turkish state and the Kurdish resistance. It follows in full:

I would like to exercise my right under Article 257, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure to make a statement on the expert report submitted by Dr. Seufert, and I would also like to request that Dr. Günter Seufert’s texts, some of which differ in content from what he said at the hearing and some of which deepen what was said in the report, be read out. I consider this to be important because he told me on my question that his old texts are still valid, and I have already confronted him with some of them at the hearing.

For these reasons I request that the following texts of Dr Günter Seufert be read out:

  • “From solving the Kurdish question to relations with Kurdistan. The Turkish government’s negotiations with the PKK” (File III.7. pp. 120-126),
  • “The Kurds as a central factor in political development in Turkey: What next for the PKK ban?” (Annex 1, pp. 61-76),
  • “Conclusion: The weakness of nation states in the Middle East is forcing Europe to adopt a new Kurdish policy” (Annex 1, pp. 77-84),
  • An article for Zeit Online dated 13 September 2015 entitled “This will only strengthen the PKK” ( (Annex 2),
  • Article entitled “Ties between Turks and Kurds are in danger of breaking” dated 10 September 2015 ( (File III.7 pp. 127-129),
  • The Federal Agency for Civic Education published “Opinion: Kurds in Syria – in the middle, as always” ( (Annex 3) and
  • Le Monde diplomatique article “With the Kurds, against the Kurds” of 11 January 2018 (Annex 4).

I also request to read two answers of the Federal Government to a parliamentary question – printed document 19/15099 (Annex 5) and printed document 19/25656 (Annex 6) – as well as an article by Deutsche Welle of 14 November 2019 entitled “SETA: A foundation in the service of the AKP” (Annex 7).

Each of the texts I have requested to be read aims to provide evidence of the content of the attached documents and to provide concrete evidence that the passages listed below were published under the name Dr Günter Seufert or that the Federal Government has provided the following answers to SETA-related questions

“The rise of Kurdish politics: On the situation of Kurds in Iraq, Syria and Turkey”, the expert briefly states: “In Turkey, the 30-year armed insurgency of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) not only meant that the Turkish state was forced to abandon its policy of denial of the language and culture of the Kurdish people, which it had pursued since the early years of the Republic, but in March 2013 Ankara officially opened peace talks with the PKK. However, these talks have not yet yielded any results. Several factors are giving the Kurdish national movement a credibility that until recently was not thought possible even in Turkish circles. The ceasefire that has been in force since the beginning of the talks, the new strategy of the PKK, which never tires of declaring its readiness to end the armed struggle, and the new rhetoric of the legal Democratic Party of Rights (HDP), which is close to the PKK and aims at the democratisation of Turkey as a whole.” (p. 6)

Again in his article “The Kurds as a central factor in Turkey’s political development: What next for the PKK ban?”, the expert states the following: “The Republic of Turkey is in the midst of a profound process of political transformation. At the moment it is completely unclear whether this process will continue peacefully or violently. It is impossible to predict whether at least a relatively democratic order will be preserved or whether the country will drift into a plebiscitary dictatorship that will revert to violent attempts to solve the Kurdish problem. What is certain, however, is that the country’s Kurdish national movement, led by Abdullah Öcalan’s Workers’ Party (PKK) and its close ally the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), is playing a more central role in today’s political trajectory than ever before in the history of the Turkish Republic.” (p. 61)

In the article “On the solution of the Kurdish question”, also under the subtitle “Time works for the Kurds and the PKK”, it states: “Although only the Kurds of northern Iraq have received arms aid from Germany, the Czech Republic and Iran, the PKK has benefited from the new visibility of the Kurds and the changing assessments of Europe and the United States. In Turkey, the PYD is seen as the only organisation that is both secular and powerful. As the international community recognises the value of the YPG (PYD’s People’s Protection Forces) in the fight against the Islamic State, and as the organisation cooperates militarily with the US and the UK, the complete disarmament of the PKK, which the Turkish government wants, seems illusory for the next few years. Even the withdrawal of its fighters from Turkey will not remove the PKK’s military threat potential.

In the competition among the Kurds for leadership in the national cause, Abdullah Ocalan has gained a great advantage over Massoud Barzani. Not only has he formulated an ideology that has found adherents in all parts of Kurdistan, but he is also the only Kurdish leader whose organisations are militarily present in all four Kurdish-majority nation states. He is the only political ideologue in the Middle East who simultaneously advocates gender equality, a secular form of government and the equal inclusion of non-Kurdish (Arabs) and non-Muslim groups (Assyrian Christians and Yazidis) in the political system. For this reason, his followers admire him as a pioneer. Given the fragmentation of states in the Middle East and the struggle of all against all that has already begun in Syria and Iraq, there is no other way for the PKK than to re-evaluate Öcalan and his ideas. That is why the PKK is now doing everything it can to get rid of the label of terrorist organisation.” (Pg. 60)

Again, the article “Kurds as a central factor in political development in Turkey” states: “A left-wing and secular national movement has emerged on the Kurdish side, in which the legal party, now called the HDP, has generally won around 50 per cent of the vote in the predominantly Kurdish areas of the South-East of the country. The political course of this party(ies) was and is strongly determined by the strategy of the outlawed PKK, which began its armed struggle against the Turkish government in 1984 and has been challenging the Turkish army for over 30 years. This is made possible by the PKK’s strong support among the Kurds in the South-East of Turkey and also in Syria, its support among the Kurds in Europe and also in Syria, its active Kurdish diaspora in Europe and the fact that it has been able to establish a centre in the densely Kurdish-populated Qandil mountains in Northern Iraq which is virtually impregnable by the army and is a powerful guerrilla.” (Pg. 62) […] […

“… On the other hand, the PKK has proved that it cannot be defeated militarily in its 30-year guerrilla war. The stable and even increasing public support for pro-Kurdish parties close to the PKK in predominantly Kurdish areas of the country has shown the AKP the limits of its political influence. The reasons pushing the government to start a dialogue with the PKK include the economic cost of the military operation, the war-weariness of the population, the rapid radicalisation of Kurdish forces, the weakening of Kemalist ideology, including the denial of Kurdish language, identity and culture, as well as the increasing internationalisation of the Kurdish question. These factors make a resumption of the war both extremely costly and unpromising at the same time.” (Pg. 63) […] […

“Secondly, the party no longer only raises Kurdish issues, but also develops progressive positions on the situation of women, ethnic and religious minorities and wage labourers. In line with Abdullah Öcalan’s democratic ideas, it develops a radical democratic discourse on direct and local decision-making processes and presents itself as the political party of the Kurds.” (Pg.68)

Again, under the subtitle of the article “The PKK’s strategy”, he states: “The HDP’s political rhetoric can be persuasive only because the PKK leadership has also been inclined to maintain the ceasefire in recent months. The organisation’s three top leaders – the imprisoned Abdullah Öcalan, the military leadership in the Qandil mountains and prominent figures in the European diaspora – unanimously represent a strategic turn away from the goal of a Kurdish nation state. All of them no longer speak of a “Kurdish nation” but of the “peoples of Kurdistan”, reflected in an inclusive rhetoric concerning non-Kurdish national and non-Muslim sectarian minorities. The common destiny of the population of the transnational Kurdistan region is emphasised. To a large extent, the mechanisms of local and regional self-government and the permeability of nation-state borders aim to resolve the tension that exists between the renunciation of the creation of a Kurdish state and the commitment to “Kurdistan”. The HDP’s politics and discourse can be linked to this political vision of the PKK.

Even in tactical steps, the different positions and interests of the three PKK leaderships rarely come to the fore. “Qandil” and “Europe” interpreted Öcalan’s latest call in a positive light. The PKK expressed its view in a letter dated 21 March 2015 and proposed a definitive cessation of armed actions against Turkey. According to the PKK, four preconditions for this must be fulfilled. The start of negotiations on a ten-point programme for the further democratisation of Turkey, the establishment of a commission to monitor the progress of the negotiations, the advocacy of a parliamentary commission to accompany the negotiations and the creation of a truth commission.

These are understandable, even moderate demands, even moderate demands. As international experience has shown, without the necessary commissions, which constitute a minimum guarantee for the weaker party, a peaceful end to the decades-long armed conflict through negotiations is neither conceivable nor realistic. Öcalan first presented the ten-point declaration in January 2015.

However, he does not want to expect any concrete results from negotiations on political reforms. Rather, the condition for ending the armed struggle against Turkey is the fundamental unwillingness of the state and the government to negotiate key aspects of Turkey’s political system in the light of global democratic standards and current political developments in the region. These include local and regional self-government, an ethnically and religiously neutral concept of citizenship, the structure of the security apparatus, women’s rights and ecology, protection of minorities and a new Constitution. Öcalan’s pre-supposition of the government’s willingness to negotiate democratisation as a precondition for reaching an agreement with the state on laying down arms was welcomed by some sections of liberal public opinion. This represents an unprecedented turn in Turkey’s assessment of the PKK’s military potential. The international classification of the PKK as a terrorist organisation whose activities are directly aimed at destabilising Turkey and directly opposed to the interests of Western states can only be maintained with difficulty given the changing political context in Turkey.” (pp. 70-71)

The article, subtitled “Classification of the PKK as a terrorist organisation”, reads as follows: “Ever since the Republic of Turkey responded positively to the unilateral ceasefire declared unilaterally by the PKK in March 2013 and started negotiations with the organisation, there has been intense debate in Germany and Europe about what policy Germany and Europe should pursue towards the PKK in the future. The siege of the Kurdish town of Kobani in Syria by the “Islamic State” from September 2014 until it was repelled in January 2015 led to a wave of sympathy and interest in the Kurds and has once again fuelled this debate. There are a number of reasons why France and the United States have decided to start formal talks with the PYD, its Syrian offshoot, and not with the PKK. These include the Syrian Kurdish PYD’s ongoing fight against ISIS, the PKK’s military cooperation with the international community, the organisation’s secular ideology, its abandonment of ethnic or sectarian enemy stereotypes, its political orientation towards recognising existing borders in the Middle East, and its willingness to cease armed struggle against Turkey.

In Germany, the PKK’s crimes in the first half of the 1990s led to the organisation being banned, but diplomatic considerations towards Turkey also played an important role at the time.

On 21 October 2004, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the PKK’s leadership in Germany should be considered a criminal organisation. Öcalan had issued an order in 1996 to refrain from using violence in Germany. In April 2015, Cemil Bayık, a member of the PKK’s three-member Executive Council, apologised to the “German people” for his actions at the time. In line with the HDP’s policy in Turkey, Bayik emphasised that the party had changed, was no longer seeking its own state and did not want to fight against Turkey.” (pp. 71-72)

The article, entitled “The Kurds as a central factor in political development in Turkey”, also states: “The PKK was also registered as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) in the United States in 1997 at Turkey’s request. In 2001, it was classified as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist”. The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2011 makes it possible to prosecute individuals and groups classified as such outside the US for financially supporting the PKK. However, unlike in Germany, France and Belgium, no criminal proceedings have yet been concluded in the United States or the United Kingdom, where the PKK was declared a terrorist organisation in 2001. The European Union placed the PKK on its list of terrorist organisations in 2002.” (p. 72)

In the same article, under the subtitle “The change in the PKK’s ideology and strategy and the PYD’s gaining legitimacy”, he mainly discussed the change in the PKK and wrote the following: “With the establishment of three autonomous Kurdish cantons in northern Syria in January 2014 and the defence of the Kobani canton against ISIS from September 2014 to January 2015, the Syrian branch of the PKK in particular appeared on the international political scene.

The People’s Defence Units (Yekineyen Parastina Gel, YPG), the military arm of the PYD, proved to be an effective partner in the fight against ISIS. The YPG’s main role in the evacuation and liberation of part of the Kurdish-speaking Yazidi religious community from ISIS in the Sinjar Mountains of Iraq, preventing “ethnic cleansing” there, also contributed to the party’s reputation. The same goes for the solidarity YPG fighters showed with Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga when they threatened the Kurdish capital of Erbil.

Unlike the PKK, which helped to create it, the PYD is only recognised as a terrorist organisation in Turkey. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has repeatedly stressed that, as an extension of the PKK, the PYD is as much a terrorist organisation as “Daesh”. However, no one on the international scene was ready to adopt this view.

In the United States, discussions about the need for Washington to rethink its Kurdish policy began even before the rise of Daesh. In July 2014, a report by the Center for American Progress (CAP), a US think tank, recommended formal contacts with the PYD and informal contacts with the PKK. It was time to consider what could be demanded of the PKK in exchange for its removal from the terrorist list. It is therefore not surprising that in October 2014 the US officially announced that it did not consider the PYD a terrorist organisation, despite its close ties with the PKK. Moreover, in October 2014, Washington directly supplied arms and ammunition to Kobani, a PYD-led town besieged by Daesh. The US State Department spokesperson emphasised that it is essential to continue supporting the PYD against Daesh.

Since the joint battle of the YPG, Peshmerga and the US Air Force for Kobani, the YPG has had a military representative at the US command centre in Erbil. In March 2015, a representative of the PYD was able to travel to the US for the first time. Sinem Mohammed, who is responsible for the contacts of the Rojava cantons with Europe, was received by US Assistant Secretary of State Tom Malinowski. At the same time, Anne C. Richard, Assistant Secretary of State for Migration, called on Turkey to end its blockade of the Afrin canton.

France also established official contacts with the PYD. On 11 February 2015, President François Hollande received PYD Co-Chair Asya Abdullah, Nesrin Abdullah, commander of the party’s women’s units (YPJ) and Khalid Isa, the PYD’s representative in France, at the Elysee Palace. Hollande promised the PYD “more support” in its fight against Daesh.

How to deal with the PKK is also being discussed at institutional level in Europe. Following citizens’ complaints, the Court of First Instance (Court of Justice of the European Union, from 2009 CFI) had ruled in 2008 to remove the PKK from the European Union’s terrorist list, but the European Summit has so far ignored this decision. In May 2014, the PKK took the European Summit’s refusal to comply with the 2008 judgement of the Court of First Instance to the European Court of Justice.

The campaign for a reassessment of the PKK achieved greater success in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In April 2013, the Assembly approved a motion to no longer designate the PKK as a terrorist organisation. The resolution on the Post-Monitoring Dialogue with Turkey no longer refers to the Turkish state’s “fight against terrorism” but to the “conflict between the Turkish state and the PKK”.

The fight for the Syrian-Kurdish border town of Kobani also triggered a movement in Germany demanding the removal of the PKK from the EU’s terrorist list and the lifting of the November 1993 ban on the PKK. On 16 October 2014, Volker Kauder, leader of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, refused even to rule out arming the PKK in support of the Kurdish fight against “Daesh”. For domestic political reasons and with Turkey in mind, however, the German government continues to ban the PKK. The recent apology by Cemil Bayık on behalf of the organisation was not enough to change this situation, nor was the motion submitted by members of the Die Linke parliamentary group in the Bundestag on 17 December 2014 to lift the ban.” (Pp. 73-75)

Again “Conclusion: The weakness of nation states in the Middle East is forcing Europe to adopt a new Kurdish policy.” In the article titled: “What role should the Kurds play in a Middle East whose future is so difficult to predict? “What role should and can the Kurds play in a Middle East whose future is so difficult to predict? This question applies to both branches of the Kurdish national movement that currently wield great influence: the Iraqi Kurds, now led by Barzani’s Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), and the Kurds of Turkey and Syria, among whom the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the formations around the Democratic Union Party (PYD) are the most powerful forces. The Kurds’ desire for greater self-government cannot be dismissed simply because these two Kurdish movements are partners of Western states in the fight against the “Islamic State” (IS). It is also important in this context that the Kurds are secular actors and are more willing than nation states in the region to recognise equal rights for Kurdish and non-Muslim groups and to integrate them politically. Despite their different characters, internal rivalries and clear democratic deficits, both groups of Kurdish actors seek recognition from the US and Europe.

At the same time, they challenge Iraq and Turkey, whose stability is a central concern of both the region and the West. In this respect, the two branches of this movement today are both a factor of stability and instability. The exact assessment of which direction they have a stronger influence will depend on how the future of the Middle East is envisaged. What can be said with certainty is that there will be no return to the traditional state order. This is because the dynamic that is influencing and weakening the state system in the Middle East continues unabated.” (Pg. 77)

Again in the concluding section, in the subtitle of the article “Guidelines for European Kurdish policy”, the analyser offers a strong perspective: “Whatever the development: Such scenarios are certainly possible. This alone makes it necessary to include as partners in conflict resolution thinking and measures not only existing states, but also quasi-state or non-state armed actors with common political ideas – including the Kurds. European intervention in the region should aim at resolving conflicts through transformation and negotiations that minimise violence. The actions of European powers can therefore no longer be limited to supporting the authoritarian policies of nation states towards their Kurdish minorities. This strategy has long since lost its stabilising potential. But Europe’s Kurdish policy cannot consist only in unconditional solidarity with Kurdish political demands. Radical solutions of one kind or another harbour the greatest potential for violence. What is needed instead is a de-escalation policy aimed at reconciliation and mediation. Such a policy can only work if, on the one hand, its proponents include various alternative paths of development in their assessment and, on the other, open channels of dialogue with all actors, including the Kurds.” (p. 79)

Under the sub-heading “The new role of the Kurds in Turkey’s domestic politics and relations with the PKK” he states: “From this perspective, the future strategy of the PKK is central to the fate and stability of the political system in Turkey. Germany and Europe should seek ways and means of influencing the PKK and encourage a development within the organisation in which forces pursuing a long-term strategy in the sense described above will continue to dominate in the future. Continuing to ignore the PKK as a political force and treating it only as a terrorist organisation is neither compatible with the domestic political situation in Turkey nor with regional political conditions.” (Pg.84)

In an article published in Zeit Online on 13 September 2015 under the title “This will only strengthen the PKK”, he states: “The Turkish government is also responsible for the escalating Kurdish conflict. The West must not only condemn the PKK but also increase the pressure on the Turkish government.”

Under the subtitle “The emergence of Kurdish national consciousness” in the publication “The ties between Turks and Kurds are in danger of breaking” he states: “When the PKK began its attacks in 1984, then Prime Minister Turgut Özal could only describe the group as a bunch of robbers. The predominantly left-wing students had little support among the conservative Kurdish population, the majority of whom voted for right-wing and Islamist parties. Today at least 80 per cent of Kurds in south-east Turkey share the PKK’s basic demands. They want education in the mother tongue for their children, local and regional autonomy from the Turkish central state, and an apology from the state for its policy of denial of the Kurdish language and culture, its policy of violent assimilation and the human rights violations that have accompanied it since the beginning of the republic.

This change in political attitude explains the success of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) in the parliamentary elections held in June this year, which made the HDP the political representative of the Kurdish region. In twelve provinces bordering Iraq and Iran, the HDP won between 57 and 88 per cent of the vote, largely depriving the ruling AKP of its base among Kurds.

Thirty years of armed conflict have produced a generation of Kurds without political, legal and economic security, whose lives have been characterised by alternating between armed conflicts and fragile ceasefires, the destruction and forced evacuation of villages and the migration of their inhabitants to the cities. In recent years, Kurds in Iraq and Syria have become existentially threatened, as in Kobani, and dependent on military self-defence capacities for survival. As a result of this political and demographic change, the PKK, which used to operate in the formerly inaccessible mountains, now has a solid base in the cities. A youth organisation called the Patriotic Revolutionary Youth (YDG-H) is engaged in street clashes with the Turkish army.”

Also published in the bpb, “Opinion: Kurds in Syria – as always, in the middle of nowhere”, also published in bpb, makes very important observations. I quote one paragraph in summary: “The militia embrace of all the dominant Kurdish parties is not only due to the great distrust they justifiably harbour towards the Middle Eastern states. The central role of the armed branches of these parties, in the case of the KDP and the PUK, as well as the PKK and the PYD, is due to the fact that the political party was born out of the military organisation; it is not the other way round for the political party to have a military branch. Given the suppression of Kurdish political activity in the states in which they are located, for a long time only military organisation ensured the survival of Kurdish parties. As a result, Kurdish parties are dominated by military logic and opinions within the party are shaped from the top down rather than from the bottom up. Decisions are taken by the leadership and implemented downwards through strict hierarchies and command structures.”

As can be seen, the expert has made very important observations. I have only quoted a few of his articles; there are many articles with similar content. As can be understood from these excerpts, the expert draws a different picture in his public writings.

1. Analysing Kurdish-Turkish relations is the most difficult subject of sociology. The expert is also a sociologist, which is what I expected from him. The difficulty in analysing the Kurdish question stems not only from the fact that the nature of this relationship is not known at all, or not wanted to be known, but also from the fact that one wants to cut it off arbitrarily and arbitrarily with platitudes that have no scientific basis. For this reason, it is necessary to use the full power of social science to determine the relationship correctly and to find a solution on this basis.

Defining the Kurdish reality correctly will lead to a correct diagnosis of a problem whose impact also occupies the agenda of Europe. This diagnosis essentially determines the fate of democracy in Turkey. In this sense, a democratic solution in Turkey will contribute to the development of vital solutions to the problems in the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia and even the Balkans. The magnitude and international importance of the problem stems from this reality. In fact, approaches that deny the problem or, on the contrary, exaggerate it as if there is no chance of a solution, as has been done so far, will not only prevent us from making a positive contribution to this problem, but will also lead to the deepening of the crisis.

While an important discussion is being held on the Kurdish phenomenon, it is of great importance that those who have a significant share in bringing the problem to this stage adopt a comprehensive, scientific and analytical approach.

The chauvinistic, emotional and pragmatic approaches that have been adopted so far, which either involve denial or a reaction with a weak scientific value, not only do not lead to any progress, but are also the main cause of the negativities that have never gained or even lost. Leaving problems to rot is probably the worst method. Maybe there is a logic in destroying, but there is no logical value in rotting.

As with the problems of all peoples experiencing fundamental social problems, defining the reality of the Kurdish people, diagnosing their illnesses and finding a healthy way of treatment are closely linked to the method of approach. This is what has not been done so far, what has been avoided. This leads to the aggravation and deepening of the problem. It has led to senseless losses and great tragedies. Contributing to the solution of this problem is a conscientious and humanitarian responsibility that everyone must fulfil to the best of their ability, even at the cost of suffering great pain.

Since the Kurdish phenomenon is a problem of civilisation, it must be based on history. There is a Kurdish history, albeit not in a bright and thick line. Without illuminating this history, it will not be possible to see the present and to diagnose and treat this problem, which has become insurmountable. When the historical method is successful, a unique power of solution emerges and leads to an equally subtle simplicity. Completing the basic historical perspectives in main stages will show that it is possible to comprehend the present, to turn blindness into enlightenment and rich solution perspectives. The great importance of this approach makes itself more meaningful when it is realised how blind both religious and ultra-nationalist approaches blind the eyes and exaggerate one-dimensional and imaginary approaches.

Of the many dimensions of historical and current relations that the Kurdish reality is experiencing, the most decisive is the dimension of Kurdish-Turkish relations. It is vital to address this dimension in more depth and comprehensively. If the desired solution is to be based on a common homeland and democratic unity, this will make the scientific analysis of the history of relations even more important. It is a reality that is well recognised today that emotional approaches ultimately lead to reactions. This is a wrong and inadequate method. Therefore, today, when a comprehensive democratic reform of the Kurdish-Turkish relationship imposes itself as an urgent task, there is a need for a solid reform and reorganisation by re-evaluating the nature, distortions, negative aspects and positive aspects of these relations in the past.

Analysing the PKK reality carefully will also facilitate the solution of the problem. It is very important to subject the PKK to a scientific evaluation. The characterisation “terror” has no analytical value. The labelling of “terrorist” leads to a lack of solution and harms its owners. Today, not only in Turkey but also in the related geography of the Middle East, the Kurdish and PKK phenomena are highly intertwined. Analysing the PKK with care makes the paths to a solution open.

It is of great importance to clarify the two main issues that are most frequently brought to the agenda when it comes to the PKK, namely the concepts of “terror” and “separatism”. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to see the historical and social background on which these concepts depend, and to review the practices of the nation-state. More importantly, it is essential to subject the imposing terror that keeps the Kurdish reality under a complete cage, which has been continuously developed, maintained and kept on the agenda throughout history, to scientific analysis. It is vital to evaluate the terrorist approach, which not only prohibits free development in the economic, cultural, social and political spheres, but also carries it to the point of a constitutional language ban, not only from a political and military point of view, but also from the point of view of law and democracy.

It has become clear that either overly accusatory or, conversely, defensive approaches do not serve the solution. When making evaluations about the PKK, whether from within or outside, against or in favour of it, it is necessary to fully take into account the uniqueness of the Kurdish problem, its intensified state of suffering and violence, its unscientific social development and especially its features that have not been subjected to political openings and have been constantly banned and suppressed. Assessments that do not recognise the impact-response relationship between the two will be highly subjective and will bring about dangerous political consequences. This is the essence of approaches that lead to dead ends rather than solutions. I consider it important to overcome this.

Only condemning approaches and accusations reduce the chances of a solution. The importance of this approach becomes even more striking when we take into account the practice of approaches that close the door to democratic politics in Turkey, leading to a vicious circle and the parties losing a lot of value. At this point, Europe’s superiority is to keep the door as open as possible to democratic politics and all kinds of free expression. Believing in the correctness of this method and giving it a chance is the realistic and modern way of solving the problem.

The cessation of violence as a method for solving the Kurdish question and the overcoming of the policies of denial, oppression, massacre and genocide depend on keeping the option of democracy open in accordance with its essence. It is obvious that the ban on culture and education in the mother tongue is an extreme form of terrorism and invites resistance. Despite this, the PKK’s unilateral declaration of a ceasefire and the fact that it remains in a position of legitimate defence, mainly outside the borders, invalidates the accusation of “terrorism”. What needs to be done is to ensure the solution of the problem completely by putting into effect approaches that leave the door open to dialogue-solution processes and democratic unity. Evaluating the PKK’s current position in this context offers an important opportunity to prevent irreparable developments in the future and this opportunity should be utilised. Leaving the door open to the PKK’s legal democratic transformation in the Turkish context is a more realistic and practical political solution than banning and liquidating the PKK altogether.

Instead of a vicious separatist-nationalist conflict management throughout the Middle East and within the borders of every state where the Kurdish problem is experienced, it is necessary to consider democratic unity through the recognition of freedoms, the brotherhood of peoples, peace and a more realistic political approach against poverty. Many contemporary experiences abundantly bear witness to the fact that conflicts caused by micro-nationalisms not only lead to unresolved conflicts, but in most of the cases where they seem to be resolved, they create even worse problems than before.

On the basis of this perspective, I will try to evaluate the expert’s report in outline. The following can be said: The expert begins his report with a grave error. He starts the definition and naming of Kurdish with the definitions of the Turkish state and Europe. He has ignored the history of Kurdistan and the Kurdish people, perhaps the world’s first formed ancient country and people, and the history of a people who had a homeland with their own name for probably the first time in history. How accurate is it to start history with the Turkish state and Europe? More precisely, how accurate is a society without a history, which is made by taking time out of the way? It is well known that history and social being whose beginning is not correctly defined will never be defined correctly. A history and society that is not defined correctly will not be able to avoid being a source of constant danger and crisis. This is the reason why the Kurdish blind knot remains unresolved.

Never in any era of history has a homeland been ignored in this way by any ideology or religion. The expert also calls my homeland “East” or “Southeast” based on Turkish denialism.

2.Not being written in the official history and in the expert’s report does not eliminate the existence of Kurdish reality. The first known naming of the region and its people was done by the Sumerians. More precisely, we can easily deduce these points from written sources. Since the written history, we frequently come across the prototype of Kurds in their relations with the Sumerian civilisation. Since the Sumerians were the main source of information, the people of the mountainous regions in the North and East were called Kurti, and the tribes in the West were called Amorites. The word Kurti literally means “mountainous people”. When we speak of Kurti, mountainousness is a basic characteristic and connotation to this day. In fact, there is perhaps as much difference between the Kurti of the Sumerian period and the Kurds of today as the difference of two dots on the letter u. They are tribal Kurds whose tribal culture of thousands of years still predominates. Among them, there are plenty of urbanites, plainsmen, class differentiated people, state collaborators and anti-state people. But the main body is Kurdishness, Kurdishness with a strong lineage, Kurdishness with traditional tribal characteristics, the main tribal Kurdishness. The urban, ruling class, state Kurd is mostly and traditionally a transitional Kurdishness that has broken away from Kurdishness and is prone to assimilation.

Again, historically, from proto-Kurds to modern Kurds, the reality of a homeland has always existed for Kurds, and the expert ignores this. The concepts of Kurtiye in Sumerian, Kürdiwana (the homeland of the Kurds) in Lewi, Kardokya in Hellenic, derived from the same root and transformed over time, and officially took the form of Kurdistan from the period of the Seljuk Sultans’ rule in Iran (11th century AD). During the Ottoman Empire, Kurdistan was used more frequently as a concept in hundreds of fermans (Sultan’s decrees). At the founding of the Republic, Mustafa Kemal repeatedly used the term Kurdistan in writing and orally, and the first deputies from the region to the Turkish Grand National Assembly described themselves as “Kurdistan deputies”. Since the conspiracy against the Kurds in 1925, Kurdish, Kurdistan and all Kurdish heritage and nomenclature have suddenly been banned and de-legitimised through horrific methods.

The expert mentioned the concept of tribe many times. Throughout history, Kurdish culture has played an important role in the development and influence of the main river culture. The fact that the Kurdish people have always lived in the conflict zone of the history of civilisation has brought about the fact that they have been able to preserve their existence only by retreating to the peaks of the mountains. It owes its title of being the oldest people to its life in these mountains. The result of this is that it does not give much space to urban culture. It has always been in constant opposition to urban civilisation and has seen the city as a counter-barbarian that devours it. Therefore, the traditional tribal and clan culture has been able to preserve its existence until today. The tribal and clan form is the basic form and container of Kurdish culture. As defined in sociology, it is more accurate to define tribal culture not as a culture based on blood ties, but as a way of existence determined by resistance against civilisation, a culture of free life.

Throughout the entire history of civilisation, the struggle to preserve its existence in a position of resistance and the will to live free have played a role in the very strong tribal culture of the Kurds. Blood and kinship are not decisive in this.

3.The expert states that the Kurds’ objection to denial and genocide after the foundation of the republic was the restoration of the caliphate in the person of the Sheikh Sait rebellion. In objecting to this, it is first necessary to look briefly at the events and struggles of the period leading up to the proclamation of the republic.

In the process leading up to the Republic, the historical alliance was based on the idea that Kurds and Turks would live together as equals and coexist as the two main constituents of the new state to be established. Mustafa Kemal travelled to Kurdistan and held meetings. It was explicitly decided that Kurdish rights would be recognised, that there would be Kurdish autonomy, and that Kurds and Turks would jointly govern the state as two equal peoples. This attitude was also reflected in the 1921 Constitution. In the first parliament, Kurds were present in the parliament as deputies from Kurdistan. Mustafa Kemal himself insisted on Kurdish autonomy in his statements on several occasions and emphasised the importance of its realisation. The subsequent process did not go as planned. After the dangers were overcome, the promises made to the Kurds were not kept, and instead of a common homeland and state, the construction of a nation-state based on Turkishness was initiated.

The expert has mentioned the Treaty of Lausanne in one sentence. The report seems out of the blue and meaningless. The Treaty of Lausanne is not a treaty to be glossed over. On the one hand, the treaty in question, which prepared the ground for the establishment of the Turkish state, on the other hand, started the Kurdish genocide process because it included the denial of the Kurds.

The treaty, which was signed in Lausanne, Switzerland on 24 July 1923 between Britain, France and Turkey, was later signed by many other states and thus became a partner in the Kurdish genocide. With the Treaty of Lausanne, Kurdistan was divided into four parts. Turkey took the largest part for itself. The other parts were left to Iraq-Iran-Syria. It was not enough to divide it into four parts, the genocide worked differently due to different liquidation practices against the Kurdish existence on each part, and each part received its share of genocide at different levels. This process is still ongoing due to the character of the genocide.

With the Treaty of Lausanne, the government of the Turkish Grand National Assembly established in Ankara was officially recognised by the victorious states of the First World War. Three months later, the Turkish state was established.

Undoubtedly, the Treaty of Lausanne did not come out of the blue. There was a very important process of political and military struggle that led to it. First and foremost, there was the First World War. The Ottoman Empire, defeated in this war, signed the Armistice of Mondros with Britain and France and accepted defeat. This was followed by the signing of the Treaty of Sevres, which divided the territory of the Empire into tens of pieces. However, the movement led by Mustafa Kemal, who initiated resistance with the Amasya Declaration, Sivas and Erzurum congresses, established the National Assembly in Ankara on 23 April 1920. The Kemalist movement had two main pillars in its resistance against the occupation forces. One was the Ottoman army in Kurdistan under the command of Kazım Karabekir, and the other was the support of the Kurds who were effective in the local resistance.

For this reason, Mustafa Kemal attached great importance to gaining the support of the Kurds from the very beginning. From Amasya to the Ankara Assembly, Kurds participated very actively in this movement with their own identities. The Misak-ı Milli was defined as the territory inhabited by Turks and Kurds. Kurdistan deputies took part in the Assembly in Ankara as a very effective force with their Kurdish identity. In the first Constitution of the Assembly in 1921, it was accepted that the Kurds would be given “muhtariyet”. In a speech he made in Izmir, Mustafa Kemal explicitly mentioned that the Kurds would be given “muhtariyet”. The Ankara delegation to the Lausanne negotiations defined itself as a joint delegation of Turks and Kurds.

The treaty establishing the Turkish Republic was signed on 24 July 1923. However, there was a long negotiation process until the signature. Of course, there were many issues negotiated between the parties. One of the most important of these issues was the status of the Kurds. Some Kurds, such as Sharif Pasha, submitted reports on Kurdish rights to the negotiations. While the parties made agreements with each other on various issues, the situation of the Kurds was the subject of bargaining. In the end, the Ankara delegation led by İsmet İnönü, who claimed to be Kurdish himself and who later became President after Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, succeeded in preventing the existence and status of the Kurdish people from being included in the Treaty of Lausanne by stating that they “represented the Turks and the Kurds”.

Thus, the Kurds were ignored in the treaty establishing the Turkish Republic. The existence and political status of the Kurds is denied. The Ankara administration, which achieved such a political result, developed a practice that put it into practice in the following period, that is, to destroy the ignored Kurds by every method. Thus, the process of a consciously planned genocidal attack on the Kurds began. Proclaimed on 29 October 1923, the Turkish state was founded entirely on this mentality and politics. With the second Constitution made in 1924, this situation was made a constitutional provision. In other words, the sections of the first Constitution prepared in 1921 regarding the Kurds were completely abolished.

The treaty prepared by the delegations of Britain, France and Turkey was later signed by other states. The last signatory to the Treaty of Lausanne was the USA. The Soviet Union, founded on the Socialist Revolution of October 1917, did not apply Lenin’s principle of “the right of nations to self-determination” to the liberation of the Kurdish nation and sided with the Turkish state against the Kurds. Again, the other states that signed the treaty and the United Nations as their union also accepted the denial and genocide of the Kurdish people in this way. Thus, all these states have become partners in the 100-year genocide practice.

There is much to be said about the Treaty of Lausanne as a whole. I am not in a position to state anything here as this is beyond our subject. However, although 100 years have passed since this treaty, which envisages the destruction of the Kurdish people by ignoring their existence and therefore their political democratic rights, this treaty must be a fundamental element of academic studies on the Kurdish question. From a political point of view, the signatory states at the time cannot avoid confronting this issue. In terms of content, too, no expert can leave this issue out.

After the Republic was proclaimed and state power was established, the policies of the founding period were reversed and different policies began to be pursued. Essentially, all those who had served in the establishment of the republic were liquidated one by one. This process, which started with the liquidation of Çerkez Ethem, continued with the liquidation of Kazım Karabekir and other founding pashas, many organisations and communities that took part in the liberation struggle were banned, the muhtariyet system for Kurds was removed from the constitution, and a new understanding and strategy emerged with the concept of a single “Turkish nation” that ignored Kurds and envisaged their destruction.

In the 1924 Constitution, the Kurds were denied and the nation-state model based on a monist mentality was taken as a basis. With this constitution, Kurdish-Turkish relations were dynamited on the one hand, and the republican project was frustrated on the other.

It is known that the Kemalist movement, which initially appeared to be very united and unifying, turned towards nation-state fascism after gaining military and political success. On 29 October 1923, the Turkish state was established on the basis of this mentality and politics and the 1924 Constitution was drafted on this basis. Accordingly, free institutions, individuals and organisations, which are elements of democratic autonomy, have been crushed one by one and a monist, fascist state has emerged. Of course, Kurdish institutions and organisations, and the Kurdish entity as a whole, were at the forefront of the institutions and organisations that were attacked. After the Kemalist movement succeeded in signing the Treaty of Lausanne, it forgot its previous discourses and promises regarding the Kurds as a whole. With the definitions of nation and homeland in the Misak-ı Milli (National Pact), with the mentality that granted autonomy to the Kurds in 1921, and with the promises made in politics within this framework, a conscious and planned attack aimed at ignoring and destroying the Kurds was launched. The Turkish state acted in a highly conscious, planned and organised manner while denying the Kurdish existence and developing massacres against the Kurds. It did what it did on purpose and received the support of the global statist system based on the treaty it signed.

With the Treaty of Lausanne, Kurdistan was divided and fragmented and a very painful and heavy process began for the Kurdish people. This is the process of genocide of the Kurds. Kurdistan was seen as an area for the expansion of Turkish nationalisation and everything in the name of Kurdishness was banned. The state, which was declared as a republic with the ambition of creating a nation-state, was built entirely on the genocide of Kurds. The nation-states of Iraq, Syria and Iran did the same. When they failed, the Turkish state stepped in and prevented developments that would jeopardise the Kurdish genocide policies. For the sake of nation state ambition, the Kurdish people, one of the ancient peoples of history, were wanted to be destroyed.

The Kurdish people’s objection to denial and genocide was met with a great suppression operation. Kurdistan was turned into a bloodbath under the pretence that Kurds were rebelling. Every valley, plain and hill of Kurdistan was turned into a place of massacre. Kurdistan was burnt and destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of Kurds were massacred in villages, cities, valleys and caves. As the expert also stated, “Tunceli laws” and “Eastern Reform Plans” were implemented. With assimilation and genocide policies, Kurdishness and Kurdish culture were tried to be destroyed. The Kurdish people were subjected to forced migration and uprooted from their homes. They were subjected to all kinds of insults and humiliation. Not only cultural but also economic genocide policies were implemented in Kurdistan. While Kurds were turned into pariahs and used as the cheapest labour force, the geography of Kurdistan was plundered unlimitedly with its underground and surface resources.

Kurds were even banned from speaking their own language and receiving education in their own language. This prohibition still continues today. The expert considers a republic that led to all this, a republic that genocided the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek peoples to be “a very modern and progressive approach”. Can a republic that led to these things be modern and progressive? Can such a republic be seen as right and positive? Are Kurds reactionary because they object to denial and genocide? Are they trying to bring back the Ottoman Empire and the caliphate? Can the Kurds’ justified objection be evaluated in this way?

In short, the Turkish state was founded on the basis of ignoring and destroying the Kurds and has formed its policies accordingly by being hostile to the Kurds for centuries. It has continued such a genocidal attack in a planned and organised manner for the last hundred years. Governments have changed, there have been military coups, but the main ideology and strategy of the Turkish state has not changed. Governments have passed on to each other their programmes on how to carry out the “Kurdish genocide”.

While carrying out political, social, cultural, economic, ecological and military genocide attacks in Kurdistan, the Turkish state has also increased the pressure and violence on Turkish society with the understanding that the genocidal war will not be weakened. By militarising a significant section of Turkish society, it has poisoned and rotted it with a nationalist understanding. The contract of Turkishness, which was created on the basis of Kurdish enmity, has become the only law and constitution of Turkey, making war inside and outside the country the law of ensuring and sustaining its existence. The war policy has impoverished the society, destroyed its moral and political fabric, and created a deep decay in society. And the state has spent all its economic resources on the war against the Kurds.

Kurdish hostility has plunged Turkey into a blind war. “I am winning, I am achieving great things”, the state of Turkey is moving step by step towards a point that eliminates its raison d’être by wallowing in the illusion. It is stuck between bottomless abysses. It thinks that teetering on the edge of the abyss is ascension. It has become a militarised state that drops bombs on the Kurdish geography every other day with a mob overflowing with racist-nationalist delusions.

Politics conducted with a mentality that imposes genocide on the Kurds, the original founders of the Republic, can never be democratic in Turkey. As a matter of fact, the other end of the genocide against the Kurds has been fascist oppression, exploitation and persecution in Turkey. All the means of Turkey were used for the Kurdish genocide. For this reason, Turkey has lagged behind in every respect. As a result, Turkey, which has all kinds of wealth, has become one of the third world countries in the world. In reality, the Turkish state had a one-point programme of “Kurdish genocide” and all means were used to implement this programme.

Apart from the interests of a handful of minorities, nothing expected from the new state and republic has been realised. Turkish people were constantly pushed and pushed with their feelings of Turkishness and nationalism. Society has been poisoned with enmity against Kurdish, Armenian, Assyrian and Greek peoples. This has not allowed the people to put forward any serious democratic demands or to make any progress. The Turkish people have been rendered unable to think and do anything but feed themselves. Erdoğan’s fascism is at war not only with the Kurdish people but also with almost every section and individual of society. Both society and the state have been completely handed over to sects and mafiaised moneylenders. Undoubtedly, all this is done and legitimised on the basis of Kurdish enmity.

In these days, when the 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Lausanne and the Kurdish resistance against it is behind us, the struggle in question is again experiencing the tension and intensity of its beginning, spread on a global level. The Kemalists had succeeded in reaching this Kurdish genocide treaty 100 years ago by negotiating Mosul and Kirkuk at Lausanne. Today’s Turkish state, on the 100th anniversary, aims to renew this treaty and start the second century on the basis of Kurdish genocide by marketing Sweden’s membership in NATO. He is now trying to replace the Treaty of Lausanne with the NATO Treaty and to carry out the Kurdish genocide in the second century on the basis of the NATO Treaty.

Erdoğan knows very well what he is doing and what he wants to do. But Kurds are a people who have no owner or supporter in the world. Even for Sweden’s inclusion in NATO, European countries and the USA are making the Kurds a bargaining chip.

In front of the eyes of the world, Erdogan is openly committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The expert passes over the Mosul Kirkuk treaty and the Misak-ı Milli issues with a few sentences, just like the Treaty of Lausanne. It is noteworthy that he has never touched upon the content and consequences of such treaties that hit the Kurds where it hurts. It is understandable that he does so since he deals with the Kurds through the thesis of opposition to the republic. He does not explain the critical stages of history, he skips them.

4.According to historical sources on the Mosul-Kirkuk Treaty and the Misak-ı Milli, in the first quarter of the 16th century, when the Kurdish beylerbeyliks could not agree among themselves to form a Kurdistan administration and could not form a unity, the Ottoman Palace wanted to organise the administration of Kurdistan through the beylerbeys of Diyarbakır and Mosul. In this administrative division, the city of Aleppo in today’s Syria also received some Kurdistan lands. This process ended with the 1639 Treaty of Kasr-ı Shirin, which officially divided Kurdistan between the Ottoman and Iranian Empires.

As is well known, one of the important causes of the First World War was the war between Britain and Germany for the redivision of the Ottoman Empire and Kurdistan. At the end of the war, Britain and France, the victorious states, divided the Ottoman Empire and Kurdistan among themselves. When the Kemalist movement organised in Ankara opposed this partition, which had been mapped out in the Treaty of Sevres, and actually broke the map, the Treaty of Lausanne was signed between these three powers on 24 July 1923.

According to historical sources, one of the most important agendas of the Lausanne discussions was the “Mosul Question”. Kirkuk was then administratively attached to Mosul. The Kurdish population in the province of Mosul was more than half of the total population. Therefore, what was being discussed as the “Mosul Question” was actually a discussion of the “Kurdish question”. In other words, the status of the Kurds in the new organisation was being discussed.

As a result, the territory of the beylerbeydom of Diyarbakır was given to the Kemalist movement. The Kurdish territories under the administration of Aleppo fell to France, to be left to the new state that was later established under the name of Syria. The big fight was over who would get “Mosul”. In order to resolve this issue, it was decided to take the matter to the League of Nations, today’s United Nations. While the work of the League of Nations was progressing towards holding a “plebiscite”, the British administration, fearing that the Kurds would vote in favour of the Ankara administration, blocked the said work. Later, taking advantage of the resistance that developed in Northern Kurdistan, the British government forced the newly established Turkish Republic to accept, on the basis of certain conditions, that Mosul should be recognised as part of Iraqi territory and left to the UK. On 25 June 1926, with the Ankara Treaty, the borders between Britain and Turkey were determined. After the first partition in 1639, the partition of Ottoman Kurdistan between the three nation states was formalised in 1926.

This last division of Kurdistan was not enough to realise the Kurdish genocide and politics during the creation of the Iraqi nation-state. Because more than half of the population of Mosul province was Kurdish. And therefore Mosul was a Kurdish province. In this case, the Mosul administration had to be composed of Kurds. In order to prevent this, new divisions were put on the agenda. And new Iraqi provinces were created by trimming the territory of Mosul province. First, the city of Kirkuk was separated from Mosul and made a separate province. Then Duhok, Hewler, Sulaymaniyah and Halabja were turned into provinces. Thus, the cities where the Kurds constitute the majority were detached from Mosul and the Mosul province was reduced to a position where the Kurds remained in the minority. In the past, when the “Mosul problem” was mentioned, it was understood as the “Kurdish problem”. Now, the province of Mosul has become recognisable and visible as an Arab province.

In the process of creating new provinces, the most interesting situation emerged in Kirkuk. In the newly created Kirkuk province, Kurds, Arabs, Turkmens and other minorities formed the population of the province. In fact, this situation of Kirkuk was not a strange situation. The new Iraqi nation state, which was created on the basis of the Lausanne Treaty, was almost like an enlarged version of Kirkuk. Within the borders of the Iraqi state, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens, other national communities and people of different religions and sects lived together. Therefore, according to nation-state nationalism, this was an unsolvable problem. Because this nationalism envisaged one nation, one religion and one sect as a solution. This was the basic principle of nation-state nationalism. In this case, one nation, religion and sect would be dominant and the others would either be expelled or assimilated. This was the main reason for the hundred years of unending strife, unresolved contradictions and endless fighting in Iraq. In fact, different national, religious and sectarian ethnic structures were living together. And they had no such problems with each other. Different ethnic structures even knew and spoke each other’s languages. The contradiction and conflict was caused by the monist, fascist character of nation-state nationalism.

In understanding the Kurdish tragedy, the position of the Kurds left within the borders of the Iraqi and Syrian states created after the First World War offers very instructive lessons. During the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, mandatory regimes were established in Iraq and Syria under the hegemony of Britain and France in accordance with the Sykes Picot Treaty (1916). Mandatory regime means temporary colonial rule. The railway line was considered as the border between the Turkish Republic and the Syrian state. Iraq-Turkey borders were drawn within the framework of the Mosul Treaty and oil interests were taken as a basis in determining the borders. It was signed at the expense of violating the Misak-ı Milli, also called the border treaty. The Ankara Treaty was signed at the very beginning of the War of National Liberation, in January 1921, in favour of the interests of France, one of the three Allied Powers during the First World War. Later on, Syria was declared an Arab republic, and the existence of Kurds and even Turkmens left within the borders of the state was not taken into consideration at all, and it was a fait accompli, taking into account only the military and political balance of power. Moreover, the position of the Arabs was not subjected to any legality and only the interests of the mandatory state (France) were taken into consideration.

It is clear from the status quo established at the beginning that this situation in itself would lead to serious problems. It has not been normalised since October 1920. It is still officially under martial law. It does not have a constitutional system based on social consensus. A significant part of Kurds were not even citizens before the Rojava revolution. In other words, in legal terms, they were in a state of non-existence. The rest have no legal, cultural, economic, administrative and political rights. The situation of the Kurds can be described by the initiation of denial, extermination and cultural genocide, first as a French mandate and later as a colonial position due to Arab national interests. According to the calculations of the hegemonic powers, this status quo continued with partial changes but ultimately intensified until the Rojava revolution. The main reason for the war in Syria, which is currently causing millions of deaths, is the 1920 treaty.

The conspiracy developed on the Kurdish reality has a decisive importance in drawing the Iraq-Turkey borders. When this conspiracy against Kurdish integrity was being developed, centuries ahead were calculated. This conspiracy is the beginning of the decree of genocide for the Kurds. The division of Kurdistan into four parts is much talked about, but unfortunately its essence is never explained and interpreted realistically. However, unless this reality is analysed and analysed in all its nakedness, what is happening in Kurdistan as a whole, Kurdish reality and social existence cannot be properly defined.

The disintegration of Kurdistan and the Kurds in the context of the Iraqi border is one of the most tragic events in the history of the 20th century. It is as if a bomb more dangerous than an atomic bomb has been placed at the foundation of the history of not only Kurds but also Arabs, Persians and Turks.

The dismemberment of Kurdistan on the basis of the “Mosul Treaty” is a clear violation of the Misak-ı Milli. This development caused great outrage in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and among the Kurds. There are still many aspects of this treaty with Britain dated 3 June 1926 that remain in the dark. This treaty is the starting date of the Kurdish genocide. It is known that Mustafa Kemal had a very difficult time in this regard and had difficulty in being held accountable. It is also known that with this treaty, dynamite was placed on the foundation of the historical reconciliation between Kurds and Turks. The rebellion of 1925, led by Sheikh Sait, was provoked to cover up this historical betrayal and was senselessly suppressed in a very brutal and bloody manner. In this sense, 1925 is not only the beginning of the rebellion, but also the beginning of the conspiracy, betrayal and genocide.

In order to comprehend the Kurdish and Turkish reality and to understand the relationship between them correctly, the process of the conspiracy against the Kurds in 1925 needs to be analysed in a very comprehensive manner.

This is what the expert should have done. The expert knows both history and sociology well. The Turkish general staff of the period and İsmet İnönü, who ordered the suppression of the uprising, are still acting on his instructions. While the 1925 uprising was still in progress, İsmet İnönü gave some instructions to the press. İsmet İnönü said: “Present this movement to Europe and the outside world as a reactionary, bigoted, religious movement so that they will not perceive it as a national Kurdish movement.” In this way, a strong and conscious smear campaign was launched. Because the perception of a national Kurdish movement would give them a headache. They did not want the great powers, which they called the “mighty powers”, to know this. This conscious distortion continues today. The black propaganda that started in the first month of the uprising continues today. There are many reasons why the Kurdish struggle for existence and identity is portrayed as a purely religious movement against the republic. The expert is consciously covering up many things. He finds it difficult to say that instead of a republic that was supposed to be democratic, a dictatorial system emerged. He preferred the ease of judging the Kurds.

One cannot help but ask the following question. Why were Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks subjected to genocide? The First World War was fought and the Armenian genocide was carried out on the basis of the opportunities created by the war conditions. The National Liberation War was intervened in, practical leadership was provided, and the remaining Christians of Greek origin were liquidated. During and after the war, the conspiracy achieved victory in 1925 with the liquidation of its strategic ally, the Kurds, as well as its leftist and Islamist allies. The expert knows this better than I do.

In order to enable and sustain Turkish nation-statism, it needed an “other”. And that was the Kurds. Britain had an interest in targeting the Kurds. In order to rule the Middle East, Britain saw keeping the Kurds in a permanently problematic position as the most suitable method for its interests. It wanted to perpetuate the system by building the problematic itself.

For Britain, a Turkish-Kurdish republic that included Mosul-Kirkuk (in accordance with the Misak-ı Milli (National Pact)) would be a serious blow to the possession of its oil. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had two options: Either he would choose the republic or Mosul-Kirkuk. He could not have both. To aim for both was to risk war with the world hegemons. Mustafa Kemal was too realistic to risk this. It is at this point that history will step into the process that will lead to the great Kurdish tragedy, conspiracy and genocide that will continue until today. This is what is meant by the Kurdish tragedy: Kirkuk must be given to Britain in order to keep the Republic alive. Giving up Mosul-Kirkuk is tantamount to shooting the Kurds in the heart. The Turkish state and British hegemonism sought a victim for their sacred interests, and this victim was the Kurds. What is even more important is that this contemporary Kurdish tragedy, which can be started in 1925, has continued uninterruptedly until today.

The Kurdish mobility in the period 1925-1940, which is tried to be judged as reactionary uprisings against the Republican regime, was essentially aimed at defending its own existence against Turkish state fascism and resisting the liquidation of Kurdish identity. As a people, Kurds sincerely participated in the national liberation war and the establishment of the republic. Their participation as an essential element is stated in all important meeting documents and in many laws of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, even in the Law on Organisation and Principles of 1921. National liberation meant to the Kurdish people what it meant to the Turkish people. The republic was not constructed as a republic of the Turkish ethnicity alone, but was built on the basis of multiple ethnic structures, especially the Kurds. In addition, the labourer and Islamic ummah identities were also considered as founding identities. Soviet support is clear. When the Turkism movement of the Unionist tradition based on a single ethnicity was adopted as the official ideology, all other constituent elements were inevitably marginalised. Their demands for rights were met with extermination. The size of the Kurdish people and the difficulties that could be encountered in their liquidation played an important role in the decision to compromise on the Misak-ı Milli (National Pact) and leave Mosul-Kirkuk to the British hegemony, and to agree with Britain to liquidate the Kurds as an entity and movement.

Just as the alliance with Germany was used to exterminate the Armenians, the treaty with Britain on Mosul was used to exterminate the Kurds. As claimed, foreign support in the Kurdish revolts was not in favour of the Kurds, but in favour of the fascist regime against the Kurds. This included the support given by Soviet Russia.

On the surface, the values of the republic were being defended against the anti-republican, reactionary elements. However, the Kurds had no movement against the Republic. They were demanding, albeit weakly, the rights to equality and freedom promised to them during the national liberation process. This demand has historical roots starting from the Battle of Malazgirt in 1071 to the 1514 and 1516 battles of Chaldiran and Mercidabık, from there to the National War of Independence between 1919 and 1922, and to the coexistence of the remaining nine centuries of power, that is, the state, and their coexistence as neighbouring and friendly peoples. There was no historical and social justification for their exclusion. But they did not recognise the fascist reality of Capitalist Modernity. They did not grasp the fascist plot against them. They were acting with the traditional law of common state and neighbouring peoples. They were in expectation.

5.The expert says that former President Turgut Özal raised the Mosul-Kirkuk agreement and the Misak-ı Milli issue. However, he deliberately omits its content and consequences. Then I will try to summarise briefly what the truth of the matter is.

Turgut Özal had evaluated the results of the war against the Kurds and realised that Turkey had been pushed into a deep impasse. With a radical attitude, he tried to put the option of peace and solution, including Mosul and Kirkuk, into effect on his own initiative. There was resistance to this on the army and opposition front. The USA and the UK, which had seen Iraq in general and Kurdistan in particular under their hegemony since 1925, could not accept this new approach of Özal. The separation of Mosul-Kirkuk from the sovereignty of the Republic of Turkey was realised as a result of the compromise of Mustafa Kemal, who was faced with the dilemma of ‘either the Republic or Mosul-Kirkuk’, with the British. In other words, if Mosul-Kirkuk was not given to the British, the Republic could not be established. It is known that Mustafa Kemal was forced to hand over Mosul-Kirkuk to the British. If he did not, both the support of the Kurdish rebellion in 1925 and assassinations were on the agenda. These possibilities were making themselves felt. This compromise is the main factor behind the Kurdish problem. It continues to be a factor with all its weight. Three prime ministers who intended to abolish this status paid for it with their own lives. The execution of Adnan Menderes, the assassination of Turgut Özal, the paralysis and subsequent death of Ecevit are closely linked to the policies regarding Iraqi Kurdistan.

The following reality has emerged: The solution to the Kurdish question is holistic. No one part can find a solution on its own. Unless the problem in the largest part, Turkish Kurdistan (North), is resolved, it is difficult for the other parts to find a solution. What is more remarkable is that the solution of the Kurdish question is locked in the hands of the hegemonic powers, especially the USA and the UK. It is seen that a solution without them, a solution that ignores their interests, will not be realised easily; and if it is attempted to be solved, they will make us pay a heavy price in return. Turgut Özal’s attempt at a solution proved these assumptions with all its horror and ruthlessness.

In early 1993, a historic solution could have been reached in Turkey. The Turkish state was on the verge of collapse. Turgut Özal saw this and therefore found it more expedient to compromise. He was convinced that it was more important to keep Kurdistan together under the roof of a common state with federal ties than to lose it, and that the coexistence of peoples was permanent and fraternal. Since the gangster and mafia deep forces within the state considered this approach as a liquidation of themselves, they found the way to get rid of Turgut Özal by liquidating him. More importantly, Turgut Özal envisaged that Mosul and Kirkuk would be re-annexed to the Republic of Turkey in accordance with the Misak-ı Milli (National Pact) and would be connected to the Republic of Turkey through federal ties. He was in an intensive relationship with the Iraqi Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani on this basis. He had established dialogue with Mr Öcalan for this purpose. The 1993 ceasefire was also realised on this basis. A truly historic step was envisaged. It is known that many generals from the army and many people from the state bureaucracy were working on the same plan together with Turgut Özal. The USA and the UK, who had separate plans for Iraq, considered the approach of Turgut Özal and his team to be extremely dangerous for them, so they launched the coup d’état that led to Demirel, Tansu Çiller and Doğan Güneş.

The statement of Doğa Güreş, who took over as Chief of the General Staff, after returning from his first trip to the UK, “We have been given the green light for the liquidation of the PKK” expresses this fact. In the following period, we saw that not only extermination attacks against the Kurds and the PKK were not enough, but also the assassination of the president, generals and ministers, changes of government, purges within the army and bureaucracy. In short, the state was abolished and paramilitary organisations equipped with all kinds of extraordinary powers were put in charge. Since I have already mentioned the ’93 concept in my personal biography, I do not feel the need to repeat it here, as I have already mentioned the horrible events and conflicts that were staged until the pacification movements against the society, the assassinations of a series of intellectuals, journalists and businessmen, mass mass murders and the takeover of the media. To summarise, as an update of Britain’s policy of “Give Mosul-Kirkuk to the Republic of Turkey and destroy its own Kurds” in the 1925s, this time the ’93 concept was saying “Do not touch Mosul-Kirkuk and destroy everyone who stands in the way, especially the Kurds”.

6.The expert states that “… the attention of the administration of the Committee of Union and Progress, which was composed of Young Turks, was primarily focussed on non-Muslims and the question of whether and how these non-Muslims could be integrated into the constitutional monarchy, which was gradually acquiring the character of a Muslim nation-state”. This determination is very wrong. It is to cover up the genocide of these peoples. It omits the genocide against these peoples.

During the collapse phase of the Ottoman Empire, the Committee of Union and Progress, composed of Young Turks who were formed within the bureaucratic tradition of the Ottoman Empire, seized the initiative and usurped power as the most organised bureaucratic power through various coups and conspiracies in the First World War and finally in the 1919-1922 National War of Independence. It left its mark on hegemony both ideologically and economically. Since 1923 it has usurped the Republic. On the basis of the ‘White Turks’ created by the government with an artificial ideology of Turkish nationalism, as a small caste, they have determined the liquidation of all other religions and ethnicities other than themselves as a basic policy. This liquidation was carried out step by step. This white Turkish fascist elite, which genocided Armenians in 1915, Circassians in 1921, Greeks in 1923, Assyrians in 1924, pro-caliphate Turkish Muslims in 1924 and Kurds since 1925, turned Anatolia and Mesopotamia into a slaughterhouse by working like a genocide machine, including the Turkish people. It has established a slaughterhouse of peoples and cultures. It turned Anatolia and Mesopotamia into a graveyard of peoples. It did not integrate, it turned people’s lives into hell.

Implemented in 1925 as a political programme through a chain of conspiracies, the regime we can call white Turkish fascism, although it defines itself as a strict secular Turkic system, is in essence a new religion that is metaphysical, very dogmatic and terrorist. Turkism, the ideology of the new religion, which was proclaimed and turned into a political programme despite the overwhelming majority of Turkish society, constitutes the genetic code for the terror, occupation, massacre, genocide and exploitation that continues to this day.

The expert also makes a completely false statement by equating village protection with the PKK. The village guard mentioned by the expert is not something new in Kurdish society. The developments caused by the Armenian and Kurdish movements in the 1870s led the imperial bureaucracy to develop radical measures. The first was to develop and exploit the Armenian-Kurdish contradiction. The same method was tried in Kurdish-Syriac relations. Peoples who had lived together for not hundreds but thousands of years were turned into conflicting peoples for the sake of Britain’s interests. Britain’s “divide and rule” policy has been carefully implemented so that all sides lose.

In order to deepen the contradiction between the peoples and to use the Kurds against the Armenians and other peoples, the state mobilised the “Hamidiye Regiments”, which were compiled from Kurdish tribes in 1892. Not only the Young Turks but also the Kurdish feudals played a role in the Armenian genocide. They played a role not only in the Armenian genocide but also in the Kurdish genocide carried out in different forms in the same period.

The Hamidian regiments caused the real destruction. The Hamidiye regiments were ostensibly established against the threats posed by Armenian nationalists, but in essence they were an organisation designed against the Kurdish national movement, which was faced with the emergence of modern forms. In this way, the state wanted to kill several birds with one stone. The Hamidiye Regiments, which should be considered as an early implementation of the village guard system, were not only used against the Armenian people. At the same time, it also disables the possible Kurdish national movement before it is even born. This is one of the grave aspects of the Hamidiye Regiments. A narrow tribal elite was armed and given salaries and ranks, all tribesmen were kept under control and the Ottoman Empire authorities used them as they wished. The Hamidiye Regiments played a decisive role in the failure of the Kurdish freedom movement to develop. The Kurdish national democratic movement, which could have developed, suffered the main blow. In addition, the tribes were made enemies of each other by the contradictions created among them. In this contradictory and conflicted environment, not only was the most important period of half a century of Kurdistan’s history wasted, but the Kurdish society was pushed into deep negativity by using contradictions and conflicts against itself, and was reduced to an incorrigible position by internal contradictions and conflicts.

These policies, which are based on the militarised forces of collaborator tribesmen in addition to the collaborator beylik and sheikhdom institutions, explain very well why the Kurdish national movement has not been able to develop as in similar examples. To summarise without further ado: Kurdish genocides carried out with this mentality are the main culprits. In the ongoing Kurdish genocide, they continue to play their cursed role as “village guards”, increasing their property and capital in exchange for denying Kurdishness and, when necessary, practising false Kurdishism. In Kurdish society, the village guards represent collaborator and betrayer Kurdishness. The PKK, on the other hand, is a rebellion, struggle and liberation war movement of the Kurdish people against denial, massacre and genocide. It is the Kurdish national movement, as the expert has previously stated in his writings.

Another important determination that the expert got wrong is about JİTEM and Hizbul- Kontra, as our people call it. He says that JİTEM is made up of PKK confessors and that Hezbollah has infiltrated the state. Both of these statements are very wrong. JİTEM has played and still plays the role of the Organisation-ı Mahsusa, which was equipped with all kinds of powers. JİTEM stands for Gendarmerie Intelligence and Counter Terrorism. It is an organisation allegedly established by the Gendarmerie General Command on its own initiative, without the approval of the Ministry of Interior and without seeking the opinion of the General Staff, and operating within the scope of the fight against terrorism. In short, it is a genocide apparatus of the deep state. This apparatus has also used PKK confessors in its war of extermination, but it is certainly not limited to them. Although the existence of JİTEM was denied by state institutions for a long time, the state was forced to officially admit the existence of JİTEM after the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office launched an investigation into JİTEM.

Founded in 1914, Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa played an important role in the Armenian genocide in order to create a homogenous, racist Turkish nation-state. It is one of the first fascist state organisations authorised to use all kinds of methods, especially massacres. A religious, Islamist branch was also mobilised with this organisation. This genocide model was updated in 1986 as JİTEM and Hezbollah, and both organisations were equipped with the same scope of duties and powers.

As Colonel Arif Doğan, the founder of JİTEM, himself admitted, an armed extermination team of 10,000 people was deployed during this period. The very important point here is that this power is above the law. It is authorised to commit any kind of murder without question. This is where it gets its genocidal character. The same powers have been granted to the Kurdistan Hezbollah, which the people call “Hızbul-Kontra”. These two genocide gangs have carried out horrific massacres. More than 10.000 unsolved murders were committed on the basis of the powers granted to these two sister organisations that are above the law and even the constitution. In this regard, I demand that the confession video of Colonel Arif Doğan, the founder of JİTEM, be watched.

The expert’s statement that children and women were killed by the PKK is a gross distortion. It is a continuation of the JİTEM grand conspiracy. Despite the confessions of countless JİTEM members, despite the situations reflected in the courts, despite the Kurds’ readiness to clarify these accusations before an independent truth commission, it is not understandable to make such an accusation unconditionally.

It is clear that there is a great conspiracy against the Kurds and the PKK. This conspiracy also has a historical basis. It was practised extensively during the Union and Progress Party period. They used it in the attempt to liquidate the Kurdish revolts, especially the Armenian and other Christian peoples, and the Communist Party. Years later, they admitted that they themselves had bombed the house where Atatürk was born, “Greeks bombed the house where Atatürk was born”, which they had spread in order to massacre Christians and destroy their property, such as during the 6-7 September 1955 pogrom against the Greeks in Istanbul. A few years ago, in order to invade Syria, the Turkish state listened to the conversations of the then Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu and Hakan Fidan, the head of the Turkish National Intelligence Organisation (MIT), who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which were reflected in the press as a result of wiretapping. They were discussing which conspiracy would be the best conspiracy to invade Syria. In short, the history of the Turkish state is a history of conspiracies and provocations. Volumes of books are not enough to write about them.

The main features of the conspiracy against the Kurds are the following: Establishing and operating murder squads under the guise of guerrillas and rebels in order to sever the ties of the Kurdish freedom movement with the people and to turn the people against these forces. JİTEM and similar organisations have been successful in this regard. They have organised hundreds of conspiracies and massacres against the Kurdish people, especially against the tribes they planned to pit against the PKK. With these conspiracies, they have made thousands of Kurds into guards against the PKK. They were also quite successful in this regard. I recommend analysing the Güçlükonak massacre and the aerial bombing of Lice in the 90s, which were allegedly committed by the PKK, because you can read in the ECHR judgements who the real perpetrators were in both cases.

The expert creates a very conscious perception. In his public writings he refers to the PKK as a political movement, a national movement and so on. In one of his articles, he even says: “Continuing to ignore the PKK as a political force and seeing it only as a terrorist organisation is neither appropriate to the domestic political situation in Turkey nor to regional political conditions.” In another article he writes that diplomatic concerns about Turkey played an important role in the banning of the PKK in Germany. The expert can be quoted extensively from his previous writings.

There is a huge difference between the picture of the PKK that the expert draws in front of the public and the picture of the PKK that he draws in court. Can a scientist think differently in front of the public and differently in court? The PKK picture he draws in court is this: “PKK representatives were talking about a “people’s war” at the time, and it is clear that by this they meant a war against the Kurdish people mobilised by the government against the PKK. In this way they also legitimised the virtual massacre of women and children.”

Much has been said and written about the PKK over the past 45 years. Perhaps it has been the most discussed entity. There is almost nothing left unsaid in terms of praise or criticism. The Kurdish people have been shouting the slogan “PKK is the people, the people are here” in the streets and squares for 45 years.

Did the expert think long and hard to make this determination? Kurds are not a people to be subjugated by pressure, violence and force. If it were so, there would not have been any oppression, violence, massacres and genocide that the Turkish state has not practised for a hundred years. Yet the Kurds have not come under the influence of the state.

Still, on the issue of the killing of children and women, I would like to share with you a confession made by a JİTEM officer in court. Ayhan Çarkın, a Special Operations Police officer who was part of the Susurluk gang, explained in his confessions that many murders and massacres were carried out by the state. Describing the dirty work done by the state in Kurdistan, Çarkın said the following: “In 1986, I was part of the first special operations group of 320 people sent to the Southeast. I stayed in the region until 1990. We were all covered in blood. Such horrible things were done to those people. When we went there, a man came, stripped a man naked in front of his children, gathered them in the middle of the village and beat them… I saw aircraft being used against this people. You use cannons, tanks, mines against the people…. We made this people eat shit, we pulled out their fingernails, we banned their language, we did these things… Now there are mass graves everywhere, these mass graves are the shame of this country… Terrible things happened in that region. We went there in 1986. One year later, a massacre took place in Pınarcık village of Mardin Ömerli. 30 people, 16 of them children, were massacred. I went there and there was the smell of gunpowder everywhere. The Pınarcık massacre was committed by groups formed by JİTEM as a provocation. Thirty people, mostly children. The lifeless body of a child was in my arms… The organisation did not kill these people. It was someone else who shed this blood. The Başbağlar massacre is definitely a product of the Ergenekon mentality. If the truth investigation commission proposed by Öcalan is established, I swear on my honour and dignity that I will go and tell everything. But other people should also come to that commission. Mehmet Ağar, İbrahim Şahin and others should also come.”

He writes that the expert listed 14 attacks on village guards in the 1990s. Although most of these attacks have been clarified, what can explain the fact that such an accusation is still being made despite the confessions of those who took part in these attacks and the final sentences of many high-ranking generals who were tried in intra-state conflicts. I would like to express that I find it difficult to make sense of the fact that a person who knows very well that Mr Öcalan insistently demanded the establishment of a truth investigation commission and the determination of human rights violations by both sides during all ceasefire processes and that the state has persistently avoided this, still makes these accusations.

7.While criticising the Rojava administration, the expert refers to groups affiliated with Turkey.

Rojava is already under occupation. A significant part of it is occupied by the Turkish state. Efrin, Serekaniye, Gre Spi… The Syrian state has also made statements on this issue. The Arab society also reacts to this situation. In essence, they are carrying out something in the region to resolve this. Basically, the genocidal, colonialist Turkish state says “We will leave no place for Kurds in this world”. There is no such people as Kurds. Kurds are backward Turks. This mentality continues. For this reason, it continues its constant attacks to prevent any place, any institution, any formation from surviving in the name of Kurdishness, in the name of Kurdish existence. It has adjusted all its relations accordingly.

The Rojava revolution was a revolution that shook the world, let alone the region. There are some revolutions in history that have affected humanity. It is a revolution that can be as effective as them. This effect is still continuing. Why is this so? Because Rojava is a women’s revolution. The Rojava revolution is a revolution led by women. Its character was determined by its reliance on women’s freedom. What determines the ideological measures of the Rojava revolution is that it is again based on the leadership of women. It may have shortcomings, it may have inadequacies, it is still in its infancy. It has just completed its social contract.

There are great attacks on the Rojava women’s revolution. Just as there were forces attacking the Neolithic period. You know, those forces that are in favour of the male-dominated order, power, barbaric, who want to enslave and own women. The Turkish state is carrying out a similar attack. It does not say children, women, schools, hospitals, water treatment plants, factories, electricity and similar places, it attacks the living spaces of 5 million people. These attacks are war crimes according to international law. Despite this, it is openly carrying out its attacks in front of the eyes of humanity.

It wants to frighten, intimidate, kidnap and migrate the people in Rojava. The region we are talking about is not a very large region. It is a narrow region, think of it as a belt, take out the Arab area and what is left is a belt on such a border line. What does the Turkish state want to do? It wants to de-Kurdify this region and settle ISIS gangs and the Islamist groups it organises in this region by finding a legal cover. This is the plan. With their help, of course, the people there want to be Turkified. Look at Afrin, which it occupied, and you will understand what it wants to do. Turkish schools were opened there and given to the gangs. Turkey’s paramilitary forces are being trained in Afrin. Every day there is harassment, every day there is rape, every day women are kidnapped, the human rights organisation explains this, we are not the only ones saying this.

The Turkish state’s Rojava plan is a big occupation plan. It is a plan to liquidate the Rojava revolution, and the target group here is mainly women. It is the women’s revolution. It is the democratic system that women want to reveal. It is the stance of freedom put forward by women.

The expert does not answer the following: Why is the Turkish army entering Syria and Iraq? Why are the occupation areas constantly being expanded? QUESTIONS such as why millions of people are forced to migrate are not asked. Is it too difficult to say to the Turkish state: “Why don’t you come to an agreement and make peace with the Kurds instead of causing so much destruction and death? What evil have the Kurds done to you, how can you build coexistence by killing them”?

Again, Turkey says “we no longer see Syria and Iraq as separate”. This means that north-eastern Syria will be a permanent battlefield. In Iraq and Southern Kurdistan, the Turkish army has established dozens of bases and continues to increase its attacks and establish new bases. Day and night, summer and winter, day and night, warplanes and helicopters bomb South Kurdistan and artillery shelling continues uninterruptedly. It uses all kinds of banned weapons and chemical weapons. The expert legitimises this situation and points to the PKK and the Kurdish front as the cause of the war.

The expert knows this very well: The Turkish army has been saying for years that it will eliminate the areas it defines as the Kurdish corridor and that it will prevent the Kurds from having a status at any cost. Can’t the expert say “Aren’t Kurds human beings? Will all hell break loose if the Kurds get a status?”. Erdoğan fascism says: “We have broken the Kurdish corridor, we have occupied Jarablus, Afrin, Serakaniye and we will clear the remaining regions”. They are very reckless and try to explain their crimes against humanity and war crimes with the concept of “fight against terrorism”. They bomb oil facilities, power stations, wheat warehouses, water stations. It is clear that these are not military targets. The United Nations, the USA and European countries are only watching these war crimes. SDF forces who fought against ISIS and are still fighting them and participating in the operation are being massacred as PKK fighters.

When it is called the fight against the PKK and terrorism, the massacre of Kurds, the condemnation of the people to thirst and hunger, and the forcing them to migrate are legitimised. How are Turkey’s actions in north-eastern Syria different from those in Gaza? Those who blame Israel for Gaza and take the problem to international organisations are silent and close their eyes and ears when it comes to the Kurds. The expert himself knows very well: If the US and Russia close their airspace to Turkey, these massacres and destruction would be prevented. Remaining silent means nothing but approval and complicity.

Fascist Erdoğan has now added the concept of “terroristan” to his definitions such as terror corridor. Of course, when we say “terroristan” we read it as Kurdistan. They cannot put Kurdish and Kurdistan in their mouths. Because they have shaped their mentality on denial and annihilation, on genocide policies. They see erasing the Kurd from history as a guarantee for their existence.

The expert does not make these situations a problem and does not feel the need to mention them. He and all conscientious people know that the Rojava geography stopped ISIS. A geography that stopped ISIS. Are you not indebted? Don’t you have a debt of loyalty? Everyone knows that Germany and Europe are being defended from Rojava. Humanity is being defended. The expert touched on this a lot in his writings for the public. Imagine, we are talking about a society, a people who stopped ISIS, from which states fled. Instead of saying that we have a debt of loyalty, that you need to contribute to a new system, the expert attacks with the language of the Turkish state.

The revolution led by women at great cost has come to this point. It emerged as a women’s revolution. It is women who give the democratic system its colour. Women’s active involvement in politics and their pioneering behaviour is disrupting the norms in the Middle East. It is a small place, but don’t look at its small size, it is shaking the existing nation state mentality, shaking the ISIS mentality.

They wanted to create a radical Islamic mentality there. A Sharia mentality, a mentality that wants to enslave women and make them property. Erdoğan fascism took the lead of this mentality. They targeted women the most. Although the expert knows this very well, in his assessments on Rojava, he mostly writes the accusations of the Kurds affiliated with Turkey and brings them here. However, many academics, scientists, intellectuals, notable people and independent organisations have travelled to Rojava from all over the world and stayed there for a very long time and conducted fieldwork. They shared the results of these studies with many governments and international organisations by giving briefings. They shared their thoughts, observations and criticisms with the public. Countless book studies have been published. These and many similar accusations such as “displacing a part of the Arab population, using child soldiers, kidnapping political opponents” are the accusations used by Turkey and groups affiliated with Turkey while making black propaganda. The expert’s reference to these accusations shows his intentions.

The expert establishes a link between Diyarbakır Prison and the PKK’s armed struggle. He makes an important point. But he makes an incomplete point. If he had been objective in this matter, he would have reached important conclusions. Nevertheless, some conclusions emerge from the expert’s findings: He makes an observation that negates those who say that the PKK is only a confrontational organisation and those who want to associate it with armed actions. As the expert has stated in his previous articles, “The PKK has never been a movement that wages only armed struggle”. First and foremost, the PKK is a movement of thought. In the Middle East, in the geography of Kurdistan, where the heaviest genocidal attacks in history were being carried out, the PKK essentially emerged as a movement of renaissance, renewal and enlightenment. It would not have been successful otherwise. Otherwise, it would not have had such an impact on Kurdish society. It could not have produced so many new political arguments. Of course, Mr Öcalan is at the centre of all of this. They developed under the leadership of Mr Öcalan. As the expert also said, Mr Öcalan always said the following from the beginning: “If there had been another way, if there had been no heavy attacks and torture in the dungeons in the years between 1980-82, the PKK would have developed more as an ideological and intellectual movement. Since the conditions for this did not exist, armed resistance came into play.”

The Diyarbakır prison was not only torture, brutality and the surrender of prisoners in the crude sense. The 12 September military coup aimed to exterminate the Kurds within the dungeon walls. For this purpose, Diyarbakır Prison No. 5 was specially designed. “Imaginary Kurdistan” would be buried between four walls, and neither Kurdishness nor Kurds would be mentioned again. Esat Oktay Yıldıran, the director in charge of security at Diyarbakır Military Prison, was brought from the occupied Cyprus, specially selected and assigned for this purpose. All kinds of inhumane practices and policies still failed.

The expert’s findings and previous writings show that the PKK is a force of thought, a political force of the Kurdish people.

The expert does not describe the Turkish state’s “collapse action plan” against the Kurds at the National Security Council meeting in 2014, before the end of the solution process. He blames the Kurds for the clashes in the cities. “The Kurds dug ditches and the state had to intervene,” he says. As in many other cases, he turns this fact inside out.

He knows very well that while the solution process was still in progress, the longest National Security Council meeting in history was held on 30 October 2014. The “Collapse Action Plan” against the Kurds was approved at this meeting. The plan includes how many thousands of people will be killed and injured, how many hundreds of thousands of people will be displaced, all legal institutions and political structures of the Kurds will be closed down, trustees will be appointed to all municipalities elected by the Kurdish people, parliamentarians will be arrested and imprisoned, and so on. According to this plan, the Kurds were to be crushed as enemies. This plan aimed to complete the Kurdish genocide by the 100th year of the Republic.

Since 2015, for nine years, a very comprehensive Kurdish genocide attack has been carried out against the Kurds with such brutality that no Turkish government has ever carried out. There is nothing this government has not done to the people of Kurdistan. Let alone the burning of cities, it even destroyed graves. It attacked their holy places. All Kurdish institutions were closed down. Municipalities were seized and trustees were appointed. Parliamentarians were arrested. Thousands of civil society and political party members were arrested.

The Turkish state burnt down dozens of cities in Kurdistan between 2015-2016 during curfews covering 7 provinces and 17 districts. I don’t want to go on too long; in the February 2017 report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, it is stated that the events and witness accounts paint a picture of an apocalypse. 2000 people, including 1200 civilians, lost their lives, and more than 200 civilian youth were burnt in basements. More than 355.000 people were displaced, cities were razed to the ground and turned into flat land.

The expert deliberately omits this genocidal collapse plan. However, the state itself openly said so: “No stone will be left on stone”. The bodies of people remained on the streets for weeks, dead children remained in refrigerators for days. How can it cover up this atrocity by saying that the youth dug trenches and declared war? The Turkish state’s attacks on the civilian population, the basements of Cizre, the ethnic cleansing of the cities of Northeast Syria, especially Afrin, the use of chemical and other banned weapons, and the systematic and time-long policy of genocide cannot be covered up.

8.The expert is skilful in tweezing. He is also skilful in concealing the genocidal reality of the Turkish state. In the report, we can see how the expert innocently renders the words of İsmet İnönü, one of the founding cadres of the Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal’s closest comrade-in-arms and the president after Mustafa Kemal, as innocent. The quotation he makes here is as follows: “In this country, only the Turkish nation demands rights based on ethnicity and race.” He censored the sentence before this sentence. The censored sentence is İsmet İnönü’s confession of genocide. İsmet İnönü does not say that only the Turkish nation demands rights. At the same time, in the previous censored sentence, he says the following: “Our duty is to make all those in the Turkish homeland Turks. We will cut out the elements that will oppose Turks and Turkism… Only the Turkish nation can demand ethnic or certain rights in this country… No other person has the right to do so”. Now these words of İsmet İnönü are mentioned in the official books of the Turkish state. Even the Turkish state does not censor this confession of massacre and genocide, I do not understand why the expert censors a one-sentence confession of genocide.

The expert shows HÜDA-PAR, which replaced Hizbul-Kontran established by JİTEM in the 90s, as a Kurdish party within the graphs of other opposition Kurdish parties. Just as the expert has equated village guards with the PKK, here too he equates Hizbul-Kontra, the killer of the Kurdish parties in the graph, with them.

We have already written that the organisation established by JİTEM and popularly known as Hizbul-Kontra massacred thousands of people in the 90s. This Hizbul-Kontra used to slice people with a cleaver, shoot them with a single bullet to the back of the neck, kidnap them, torture them and make their dead bodies disappear.

One of their most disgusting methods was to murder people by torturing them with pig ties and pouring concrete over them after burying them. When the Turkish state saw that it had used Hizbul-Kontra sufficiently, it carried out an operation against their headquarters in Istanbul and killed their leader. It arrested notorious murderers and sentenced them to prison terms. In 2002, humanity was shocked by the images of bodies tortured to death with pig ties and buried in concrete.

After Erdoğan came to power, he released all of the Hizbul-Kontra gangs that carried out thousands of massacres in the 90s with the laws passed by the Parliament in 2010. He supported and enabled them to organise under the sign of HUDA PAR. After the establishment of HUDA PAR, it started to use these gangs against secular-democratic Kurdish politics.

This gang, which massacred thousands of Kurdish and democratic institution members in the 90s; on 6-8 October 2014, which the expert wrote in the Kobane section of the expert’s report, on the protest against the genocide attack launched by ISIS against Kobane, they fired guns at the people. Hizbul-Kontra and HÜDA PAR gang murdered dozens of Kurdish patriots. Hizbul-Kontra randomly shot people on the street with guns. They also attacked people with cutting tools and axes and injured dozens of patriots. Attacking people with cleavers was one of the methods frequently used by Hizbul-Kontra in the 90s.

In the elections of 14 May 2023, this gang stood on the same front with Erdoğan’s party and the other Turkish fascist party, the MHP, and entered the elections together. In the current situation, AKP-MHP- Hizbul-Kontra (HUDA PAR) has formed a front. This HUDA-PAR is included in this graph. The aim of this Hizbul-Contra front is to eliminate secular-democratic Kurdish parties and complete the Kurdish genocide.

This gang party cannot be included in the graph of democratic legal Kurdish parties. They are neither Kurdish nor Islamic parties. In short, murderers and victims cannot be on the same graph. Moreover, they show themselves in the graph of AKP-MHP and other fascist parties. I don’t understand why the expert does this, it is incomprehensible.

The expert refers to Kurds as a minority. It is mentioned in several places in the report. Although he did not give the Kurdish population as a number, but in his old articles he gave the Kurdish population as 29 million.

The expert also knows this very well: The Kurdish phenomenon, no matter how we define it, is not a reality that we can transform in any way we wish with our subjective prejudices and forced ideologies and policies, but must be seen and evaluated with all clarity, moral and political responsibility. Whether we recognise it as a minority and ethnic or a national and social phenomenon, what is important are its qualities; the phenomenon itself. We cannot have the right to say to anyone that I want to see you like this. This only makes sense if we have the mythological obsessions of the era of the god-kings.

9.The expert makes important evaluations on the solution process between 2013 and 2015. Here we have his May 2015 article “From solving the Kurdish problem to dealing with Kurdistan, the Turkish government’s negotiations with the PKK” and “The Kurds as a central factor in Turkey’s political development: What’s next for the PKK ban”. A reading of these articles will reveal how he censored himself. If he were to write a new article now, I could understand it. In the presence of the court, I asked the expert whether he agreed or disagreed with these old writings; he replied that he did. The expert has taken the sections from the article out of context in his report, so the process is not very clear. However, he had written a very comprehensive, scientific, objective and impartial article. It was one of the articles that analysed such a historical process well. Why did he take it out of context and make it ambiguous? Perhaps he refrained from affirming Mr Öcalan and the PKK and negating the Turkish state and Erdoğan before the court. As I have written before, can a scientist think differently in front of the public and differently in court?

Another thing that shocked me in this section is what he wrote in the section titled Kobane. The title is Kobane, but the content has nothing to do with the Kobane resistance. We are not here to discuss why he did not write about the Kobane resistance. Kobane is an actual issue, all humanity has done and is doing justice to this issue. Don’t misunderstand, the expert also included the resistance in other articles. What I have a problem with here is why the expert excluded the section on the relationship between Turkey and ISIS from the report? I reminded him of this section in your presence and he said that he agreed with this article. Here are a few sentences that were censored. The expert writes that “there are numerous documents and reports indicating that Turkey is providing overt and covert support to Salafist and jihadist groups in Syria and that humanitarian aid to its Kurdish neighbours is being blocked; not only PKK supporters but also the international public opinion has strengthened that the Turkish government is working for the fall of Kobane and the end of the Kurdish administration in northern Syria dominated by the PYD”.

The expert insisted that the HPG’s action on 1 October 2023 against the General Directorate of Security, located on the compound of the Turkish Interior Ministry, was directed against the Turkish Grand National Assembly. He knows very well that the PKK does not carry out any actions against other institutions except military targets. The police officer who came as a witness also said that the action was aimed at the Ministry of Interior. Why does the expert turn this fact on its head in front of the eyes of the world and correct it only when asked explicitly? Apparently he wants to build a negative perception of the PKK.

If the parliament is a yardstick for him, then on 15 July 2016, Erdoğan bombed the parliament in order to eliminate his rivals with whom he shared power, and there is footage of this. Why is this not a problem for the expert?

Again after this action, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan publicly announced to the world that civilian living spaces and production facilities in all parts of Kurdistan are now among their targets. After this declaration, since 1 October, the attacks against the Kurdish, Arab, Armenian, Circassian, Turkmen and Assyrian people living in the Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria and self-governing Kurdish, Arab, Armenian, Circassian, Turkmen and Assyrian people have not stopped. It is bombarding Northeast Syria. It destroys living spaces and energy resources. It is killing countless people.

Erdoğan is loudly proclaiming that he will clean up the special zone in north-eastern Syria and eliminate it completely, while justifying all crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and Kurdish hostility with the “fight against terrorism”. If the expert believes these statements to be true, I have nothing to say. If infrastructure service centres, hospitals, schools, health centres, places of worship, electricity and water stations, wheat warehouses, gas and oil enterprises fall within the scope of PKK targets, there is nothing to say here. Erdoğan himself defines Israel’s cutting off food, water and electricity, bombing hospitals and similar places, and killing civilians in Gaza as a violation of international law and a violation of human rights. Why should what is a crime for the Palestinians be legitimate for the Kurds? Moreover, the Kurds or the autonomous administration have not attacked the Turkish people like Hamas and have not declared war.

Germany and Europe, in particular, say that Hamas massacres civilians and acts like ISIS. But is not Erdoğan the best friend of Hamas? Isn’t Erdoğan the one who hosts Hamas leaders, especially Hamas leaders, with state protocol? Isn’t it Erdoğan who says “Hamas is not a terrorist organisation, but a group of liberation and mujahideen”? Didn’t Erdoğan tell the press that he shares the same values with the Taliban? Where did the tens of thousands armed by Turkey in the areas it occupied in Syria come from? Who are they? The gangs that Erdogan has gathered and armed are generally the remnants of gangs such as the Ikhwanists, ISIS and al-Nusra. What are the characteristics of these gangs unleashed on the people other than looting, pillaging and rape? What ideology do they act with other than enmity against Kurds and those of different religions and beliefs? Erdoğan keeps these fascists and enemies of humanity at his disposal. With them he threatens not only the Kurds in Syria, but the entire Middle East and the world. The expert misses this point. He says there is a conflict between the Turkish state and the PKK.

The government of north-east Syria has not declared war on the Turkish state. They have repeatedly declared their readiness to resolve the conflict through dialogue. The autonomous region in Syria has no army and no air force. Turkey has the second largest army in NATO. It is the one that invaded and attacked north-eastern Syria. It is it that has designated the settlements of the Kurdish people as its own security belt and declared that it will dismantle them.

Nearly 5 million people from the Kurdish, Arab, Assyrian, Turkmen and Armenian peoples live in these regions. The US and other coalition forces are also present in these regions. There are also Syrian state troops and forces such as Russia. The people who liberated the region from the tyranny of ISIS have established an autonomous administration to run their affairs. The region is governed by a system of councils. Municipalities provide services, schools are open, children are educated and the people’s life needs are met. These autonomous regions are the most democratic and most secure in Syria.

In short, there is a one-sided aggression and hostility. Which reason and conscience, in the name of science, can justify this genocide and massacring aggression of the Turkish state?

Why is Turkey carrying out invasions and genocidal attacks against Southern Kurdistan (Iraq) and Rojava (Northeast Syria)? This problem cannot be dealt with in isolation from its genocidal, colonialist domination over Kurdistan and the genocidal attacks it carries out on this basis. In my opinion, it is this reality that the expert cannot see. Therefore, the aim of the invasion attacks in question is to destroy the Kurdish existence in all respects, such as in Northern Kurdistan (Turkey), and to realise Kurdish genocide. This is the first and main aim. The Turkish state and today’s Erdogan fascism have clearly seen that it will not be able to achieve results only with genocidal attacks against the people in Northern Kurdistan, without committing genocide in other parts of Kurdistan, especially Rojava and Southern Kurdistan, and without destroying the developments that have emerged. In other words, the Kurdish genocide will not succeed. Because organised and democratic developments in different parts affect each other and lead to the development of the struggle for freedom and democracy, consciousness, organisation and action in other parts. The expert also fails to see this issue as a whole.

Therefore, if the colonialist, fascist, genocidal Turkish state wants to complete its genocide, it must carry out genocidal attacks against the Kurdish existence and freedom in all four parts of Kurdistan and abroad. This has been the result of the extermination and liquidation attacks carried out by the governments of the Turkish state against the Kurds over the last 40 years.

We can talk about two important aims of the Turkish state’s invasion attacks against Rojava and Southern Kurdistan. Undoubtedly, it has many purposes, but I will not go into detail. If I give only one example; occupation and genocide attacks are used as a tool of regional struggle and even global struggle for interests. However, two main objectives are decisive.

The first is to realise the Kurdish genocide. In other words, the main purpose of the invasion attacks against Rojava and Southern Kurdistan is to destroy the free Kurdish consciousness, will, organisation, gains, in short, the Kurdish existence. So much so that not only its military power, political effectiveness, economy, living spaces; but also to leave nothing that expresses Kurdish existence and freedom and belongs to the Kurd, even at the level of spirit and thought.

For this purpose, the Turkish state is conducting a genocidal attack in Northern Kurdistan by resorting to all means and methods. It does everything from cultural genocide to physical massacres, in other words genocide. Changing the demographic structure, displacement of Kurds from their homeland and mainly assimilation are being implemented. It aims to Turkify the Kurds by subjecting Kurdish history, language, culture and everything to cultural genocide, to turn Kurdish existence into a raw material for Turkish nationalisation, so that nothing Kurdish is left in this world.

We see the same aim in the invasion attacks against Rojava and Southern Kurdistan. It is necessary to know and understand this because it is the right thing to do. With these attacks, the free Kurdish will is to be broken, Kurdish gains are to be destroyed, the status of the existing two parts is to be eliminated, and the Kurdish genocide is to be implemented in these parts as well. As a matter of fact, the practices in the occupied Eflin, Gre Spi and Serakaniye are clear. These are no different from the practices in Northern Kurdistan.

In other words, it is obvious that what is done by the Erdogan fascism of the Turkish state in the occupied places is a complete genocide. Therefore, the current occupation attacks of the Turkish state against Rojava and Southern Kurdistan should be seen as an important part of the Kurdish genocide. Any scientific analysis of the Kurdish question and the possible reactions of the Kurds should be based on this fact.

At the same time, the second main goal is to occupy Rojava and Southern Kurdistan, to incorporate the former Ottoman Kurdistan back into the borders of the Turkish state, and thus to develop a kind of expansionism in the Middle East, also called “neo-Ottomanism”. This goal was secretly pursued in the past, but now it is openly pursued by the Turkish state.

In the mentality and politics of the Turkish state, there has always been an ambition of expansion towards the former Ottoman lands. The seizure of the territories determined by the Misak-ı Milli, which we have mentioned many times before, has always existed as an ambition and goal of the Turkish state. The Turkish state has a great desire for annexation and expansion; it has the goal of becoming a regional imperialist power.

However, since the implementation of this requires favourable conditions, the Turkish state does not always openly express it or try to put it into practice. As the conditions mature, as opportunities and possibilities arise, such steps are tried to be taken. In short, there is a more careful and cautious approach in this regard. However, a scientist has to analyse this clearly and name it.

I have already mentioned the Lausanne Treaty, and today it is necessary to talk about the NATO Treaty. Now, it is necessary to evaluate the support given by NATO and the USA to the invasion and genocidal attacks of the Turkish state, Erdogan fascism against Rojava and Southern Kurdistan in return for Sweden’s inclusion in NATO, and the strategy they pursue in this direction, on the basis of these aims of the Turkish state. In a way, the US and NATO support the colonialist and genocidal policy and attack carried out by the Turkish state against the Kurds. Because on the one hand, the current Turkish state is based on and protects the political borders created by the First World War and consolidated after the Second World War, which the USA approved and NATO assumed the responsibility of implementing. We know that these political borders divided Kurdistan into four parts, ignored the Kurds and accepted the establishment of a genocidal sovereignty over Kurdistan by different states. Therefore, the colonialist-genocidal sovereignty of the Turkish state over Kurdistan is not rejected by the USA and NATO, on the contrary, it is taken as a basis, that is, it is adopted.

More precisely, they are pleased that this colonialist-genocidal sovereignty that disintegrates Kurdistan is carried out by the Turkish state. They give support in this direction. Their basic stance is in the direction of support. They not only approved the establishment of the Turkish state as a colonialist-genocidal power in Kurdistan, but also assumed its security by taking this power into NATO after the Second World War. Due to these responsibilities, they support the Kurdish genocide mentality and politics of the Turkish state. Taking advantage of this, the Turkish state is both carrying out genocidal attacks in Northern Kurdistan and trying to continue the same attacks in the form of occupation and annexation attacks in Rojava and Southern Kurdistan. In essence, there is a unity and partnership in terms of mentality and politics. The expert covers up this situation, namely the Kurdish genocide, and portrays it as a conflict between the Turkish state and the PKK across borders.

On another issue, the expert says that the PKK has been defeated militarily, and he has drawn this with graphs and shown it on graphs. In recent years, many so-called security experts in Turkey have been saying on TV screens with sticks in their hands: “We captured this place like this, they never stayed here, we cleaned it”. Since 1984, it is always the same story. They have been saying the same thing for years. Again and again. They say we have finished. There are 40 people left, 30 people left, 60 people left, 80 people left, then they say that after a year no one will talk about the PKK anymore. They talk about the PKK the most.

Apparently, the expert also joined this chorus. However, in many of his public writings, the expert says, “The PKK has proved in 30 years of guerrilla warfare that it cannot be defeated militarily”. Now the problem is not that the expert thinks this way. But Erdoğan proudly publicises that they have killed more than 35,000 Kurds in their war against the Kurds since 2015. He keeps emphasising that they have killed more Kurds than any previous government and that they will chase and destroy them everywhere. The expert is following these statements very closely. Since the PKK has been defeated since 2015, who are the people Erdogan has killed since 2015? Since the PKK has been reduced to triples, twos and singles for ten years, aren’t these 35,000 people civilians? Erdoğan admits that he is killing civilians. Earlier, in 2006, Erdoğan had said “the state will do what is necessary, whether it is women or children”. Why does the expert not mention this? Why does the prosecutor’s office stop? Why doesn’t it file a lawsuit against Erdoğan? The expert is a sociologist. This problem is also sociological and historical. What is expected from him is sociological graphs, not military graphs. For example, I would expect the expert to answer the following questions: What happened when the so-called PKK was defeated? Was the problem solved? Has Turkey become democratised? Did chaos, crisis and wars end in the Middle East, or what?

What was expected of him was to make a multi-faceted breakdown of the last century and to draw up a balance sheet on every item. He would have drawn extremely instructive conclusions and made a great contribution to the solution of this knotted problem.

He could have done this. Now the 100th year of the anti-Kurdish and genocidal mentality and politics is behind us. The state of the Republic of Turkey has completed 100 years. For a hundred years, an anti-Kurdish genocidal mentality and politics have been implemented. And on this basis, an occupation and genocide attack is being carried out against the Kurdish people. The fascist colonialist and genocidal attack in question has reached its peak today with the current Erdoğan fascist dictatorship.

So what is the point reached on this basis? As a result of a hundred-year genocidal attack against the Kurds, what point has the Turkish state and the reality of Turkey come to? What have the Turks gained in the last century when they abandoned Kurdish friendship and became Kurdish enemies? In fact, it would have been better if the expert had drawn a graph of the last century on the basis of these questions.

For example, what has the hundred-year Kurdish genocide war gained and lost the Turkish state and Turkish society? In terms of manpower and other resources, how much has the Turkish state spent and lost in the Kurdish war in the last year? A graph containing the results of these questions reveals in a very striking way what the genocidal mentality and policy has cost the Turks.

It should be noted that the state and society of Turkey, which is today in crisis and chaos, did not come to the point of collapse by itself. The point reached today is the product of an anti-Kurdish, genocidal mentality and politics. The economic, financial, political, cultural, social and administrative crisis and collapse is the result of the war waged against the Kurdish people for a hundred years on the basis of genocidal mentality and politics.

The society in Turkey has not gained anything from all this. Anatolia and Mesopotamia, which used to be a paradise, have turned into hell as a result of the genocidal war of the last hundred years. Today, its mountains and stones are burning and its natural resources are being plundered. The youth and labourers of this geography are scattered all over the world, trying to make their bellies heard.

So was it worthy of these peoples and geography? Of course not. All this did not happen spontaneously. Someone has done all this in a very conscious and calculated manner, and they have made and are making financial gains from this. So who are those who profit from such a monstrosity? A handful of money lords, conglomerate owners and monopoly power have profited. The global as well as the local ones have profited. As the Turkish state waged its genocidal war on the Kurds, the global capitalist powers exploited, plundered and pillaged both Turkey and Kurdistan. Again, the expert does not mention any of this.

Now it is better understood that the British and French states signed the Lausanne Treaty on 24 July 1923 and gave permission and opportunity for the establishment of the Turkish state. They have both managed and supported such a war for a hundred years. Turkey was admitted to NATO for this reason. This is why they created the false hope that Turkey could join the EU. On this basis, on the one hand the resources of Turkey and Kurdistan were exploited, on the other hand the Middle East geography was kept under control and the Turkish state was used as a gendarme for exploitation. They talked about Turkey’s important strategic position and utilised this so-called position to the fullest by marketing it.

The expert’s statement that the PKK was defeated militarily can be read on this basis. Just as it was once said that it had been proven that it could not be defeated militarily. These two definitions may change according to the conjunctural situation.

10.The expert interprets the KCK agreement. While interpreting the KCK agreement, he searched for deficiencies and inadequacies in the KCK ocean with tweezers, and searched for flaws and mistakes. When he could not find any, he relied on the tweezing method. When I say “tweezing”, I mean that he pulled out and interpreted sentences and phrases that have no front and back. Again, in many places he presented his interpretation as a quotation from the KCK agreement.

When the expert has quoted from many places in his written report, such as the preface, he has interpreted them out of context. For example, “In a sense, the PKK has become the creator of its patriotic people.” There is no before and after. He makes it seem as if the preface consists of this sentence. The preamble lists the foundations of democratic confederalism. It deals with the legacy of countless freedom struggles from the Neolithic agricultural revolution to the present day, including the women’s struggle for freedom, the struggle for the freedom of peoples, the class struggle and religion, and the entire history of humanity on a social and moral basis. It interprets and bases the truths revealed by these in favour of the freedom of society. He interprets and justifies the facts presented here in favour of the freedom of society. In his oral testimony, the expert had to bow to precisely these historical facts and no longer repeated his allegations that the KCK had a totalitarian thought and structure.

The expert said that the Convention does not contain the phrase “human dignity is inviolable”. He judged from this perspective. He insisted on this very much. He took it as a fundamental measure. But in the sixth article of the convention, under the title of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, it is stated as follows:

“Fundamental Rights and Freedoms

The Founding Declaration and Principles of the KCK Charter are the essence of fundamental rights and freedoms. A society composed of different communities and groups and based on the equality of these groups is a democratic society. The KCK observes the exercise of individual rights together with collective rights. It is based on maintaining the balance between the individual and society. It guarantees all rights and freedoms within a multicultural, democratic nation based on democratic law.

1) The fundamental rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights represent democratic values that must be adhered to.

The KCK respects, protects, supports and fulfils these rights.

2) The right to life is the most fundamental human right. This right cannot be abolished on any grounds.

3) Everyone has the right to defend his honour and dignity. No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment.”

4) Everyone has the right to freedom of religion, conscience and belief. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression and association.

5) No one shall be humiliated or discriminated against because of their identity or difference.

6) Everyone has the right to participate in democratic politics.”

Again, the options listed in the tenth article are his own interpretation. I request that the tenth article be examined to learn the expert’s intentions.

A lot can be said about this KCK issue. But neither I nor the expert need to interpret it. The KCK convention is in the file. I ask you to compare it with what the expert has written. You can easily see how the truth has been turned inside out.

Throughout the report, the expert relied on manipulation and creating a negative perception. It is clear from his public writings that these are not his real thoughts. There is a saying in Turkey. “The expert says differently in public and differently in court.

The expert spends almost half of his report on intelligence information to the extent that he mentions the PKK. Approximately 25 pages consist of quotations from Turkish and German intelligence reports.

I found it strange that the expert referred the evaluation of the PKK, which is a result of a historical and deep-rooted problem such as the Kurdish problem, to intelligence. A scientist should not have come to court with intelligence reports. Intelligence and police officers already come with their own reports. In fact, they come with more than enough. What is missing are sociological and historical analyses.

However, in his article “Together with the Kurds against the Kurds”, the expert said the following: “… Both reasons are equally valid when it comes to the Kurdish question. Critical voices are being silenced even in parliament. The Kurdish question is once again being denied. It is equated with terrorism and defined solely as a security problem.”

The expert brought the state reports of the German intelligence organisation. The expert was not satisfied with this, he did not find the reports of the German intelligence organisation satisfactory, so he turned to the Turkish National Intelligence Service (MIT), in other words, he presented the reports of the Turkish National Intelligence Service (MIT) under the guise of a SETA think tank.

The German Federal Government has a definition about SETA. The founder of SETA is İbrahim Kalın. İbrahim Kalın graduated from Alanya High School, where they did not allow me to graduate, one or two semesters before me. After completing his academic studies on history and Islamic philosophy, he first served as the founding chairman of the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA) after 2005. SETA was both on the agenda of Turkey with the report it prepared in 2019 and on the agenda of Germany in 2021. In the response given to the parliamentary question of a member of the Free Democratic Party in Germany in 2020, it is pointed out that the AKP and MIT strengthened their activities in Germany after the coup attempt on 15 July 2016. In its response, the German government states: “There are also personal contacts between the Turkish government and the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA), which has had an office in Berlin since 2017. This foundation is a think tank that operates as a foundation close to the Turkish ruling party AKP.

SETA is used to publish the views of the current Turkish government in German under the label of science and research. Through events and publications, SETA endeavours to bring these views into the public discourse of other European countries. In 2019, SETA published two Turkish-language reports that serve to put pressure on the Turkish government’s opponents.”

In the response, where these activities are noted as efforts to form public opinion through non-governmental organisations, SETA is mentioned for the first time in Turkey’s intelligence and lobbying work. On the other hand, the report titled “Extensions of international media organisations” prepared in 2019 included the information of journalists and was discussed in Turkey as a profiling activity and targeting journalists. In the news report of Deutsche Welle dated 14 November 2019, the following statements are made: “The extension of international media organisations in Turkey” is the title of a July 2019 study by the Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA). The authors of the study personally defame journalists working for foreign media organisations such as Deutsche Welle, the BBC and Voice of America by referring to their CVs, partly with false or fabricated information. It is well known that SETA is close to the Turkish ruling AKP party. But some sections of the public – especially in Turkey – wanted to know more: Who finances this think tank? The answer [from the German government], which Deutsche Welle had exclusive access to, was more striking than expected: The Turkish SETA Foundation is largely financed by the Albayrak family. SETA declined to comment on this when asked by DW.” The article refers to a parliamentary question submitted in 2019.

In the answer to the parliamentary question, it was stated that in addition to İbrahim Kalın, many other AKP members were also working there. İbrahim Kalın, who was once the head of this organisation, is now the head of MİT. The expert describes this intelligence organisation as a think tank in his written report, but upon being asked a question during the hearing, he had to admit this in a way.

Both SETA and German intelligence have baseless accusations against the Kurdish people and institutions. I do not take these intelligence organisations seriously and I do not accept them as interlocutors. That is why I think the report is not based on an independent source. I find it strange that the expert came to the court with SETA and German intelligence reports. The expert is an experienced person. He is a person who has thought about the Kurdish problem and proposed solutions. I do not understand why he has turned himself into a spokesperson for intelligence organisations. The expert should not have come to the court with diagrams, military graphics and intelligence reports.

I leave it to your conscience and the judgement of German scientists to decide whether this report based on intelligence sources is a scientific report or an intelligence report.

Hamburg, 16 February 2024