First of all, I wish a speedy recovery to our dear friend Sirri Sureyya Onder. All of us here are concerned about his condition. He was undertaking an important duty, and he was doing so very well. After his surgery, the whole society in Turkey and Kurdistan embraced him. This is significant. In a way, this embrace is a support for the ‘Call for Peace and Democratic Society’ that Rêber Apo¹ took the initiative for. In other words, the reason for such support is his efforts for peace and democratic society.

Sirri Sureyya Onder is a good artist, filmmaker, director, and writer who knows very well how to use his language. His speeches have a corresponding impact. He can be described in many ways; he is a revolutionary, a democrat, and a politician with a mature personality who knows how to address every part of society when he holds a speech. He is quite a versatile person. Since 2013 he has been part of the Imrali talks and has had important dialogues with Rêber Apo. Once or twice, when he said to Rêber that he himself was “not very keen on politics,” Rêber Apo criticized Sirri Sureyya Onder. Yes, making art is important, but politics is also important in Turkey. Considering the reality of Turkey, without a democratic Turkey, without a Turkey where there is free thought, there can be no proper art; in this respect, Rêber Apo encouraged him to stay in politics. Sirri Sureyya Onder values the words of Rêber Apo and highly respects him. He is a friend of ours who always says that the thoughts of Rêber Apo had improved him a lot and broadened his horizons.

A good son of the peoples of Turkey and a very good friend of the Kurds is currently suffering from a severe illness. He was contributing a lot to the Kurdish people’s struggle for freedom. Our hope and expectation is that he will regain his health and resume his political struggle for the democratization of Turkey and the solution of the Kurdish question. We believe that with the resolution of this problem, he will also make strong contributions to art and literature in Turkey.

The global struggle and the international campaign for the physical freedom of peoples leader Abdullah Ocalan are continuing, and based on this an impressive conference was recently held in the Italian capital. How do you assess the current efforts and developments in this context?

The conference in Rome was a result of the continuing global campaign for Rêber Apo. There have been many meetings, conferences, and, for example, concerts like this, and there will even be more in the future. In this respect, today, the campaign for the freedom of Rêber Apo has become a struggle and an effort of all the peoples, democrats, and socialists of the world. Especially the trade unions in the UK have played an important role in the development of this struggle at this level, and one of the people responsible for it, the esteemed Director of International at UNITE the Union, Simon Dubbins, has really made great efforts. We truly appreciate and salute their efforts.

The conference in Rome was significant. The results of the campaign carried out so far were evaluated there. A great will and determination to further develop the campaign for Rêber Apo was expressed, and there had even been discussions about the nomination of Rêber Apo for the Nobel Peace Prize. We salute everyone who contributed to this campaign. They are truly very valuable friends, people with principles and values. They support such a revolutionary, knowing what kind of a socialist and socialist Rêber Apo is, how he supports the women’s liberation struggle and the ecological struggle, and how he fights for the freedom and democracy not only of Kurds but of all the peoples of the Middle East. They support such a revolutionary.

We see how much the people’s sense of responsibility for Rêber Apo has grown in the international arena – it stems from the fact that Rêber Apo has become a leader of all the peoples and a pioneer of democracy and freedom – but it must continue to grow and be expressed more effectively. Partly because of the Turkish state’s constant pressure, constantly portraying the freedom struggle as a terrorist movement and constantly putting pressure on it, various circles are hesitant – to a certain extent – to support it more openly. Otherwise, the current thoughts of Rêber Apo are an idea, a paradigm that really needs to be evaluated and discussed on an international level. Especially the leftist forces in Turkey and the democrats in Turkey have a deficiency in this regard. They need to read, understand, and evaluate Rêber Apo’s paradigm better. There is a paradigm, an ideology put forward by a Kurdish leader. Certain circles do not show the necessary and sufficient interest due to the fact that he is a Kurdish leader. I express this as a clear criticism. While he is attracting so much attention all over the world and in the Middle East, this weakness of the left and democrats in Turkey is actually a result of the Turkish state’s or the Kurds in Turkey’s incomplete view. The same is not the case on a global scale. Everywhere in the world, from Europe and America in the North to Africa and Asia in the South, those who learn about the paradigm of Rêber Apo embrace it. Those in the farthest places are trying to learn and embrace it. All the prison writings of Rêber Apo are in Turkish. Those who know Turkish could learn the paradigm better and easier than anyone else.

When we evaluate these kinds of conferences, we see them as stages to disseminate the paradigm of Rêber Apo. We see these conferences as an important method to make efforts in that direction all over the world. On this occasion, I once again greet with respect those who prepared that conference, those who embraced it, and those who participated in it.

How do you evaluate the last meeting on Imrali that took place on April 21, as well as the meeting with the Minister of Justice, both of which took place while the isolation of peoples leader Abdullah Ocalan still continues?

The initiated process is crucial. It concerns the future of Turkey. It concerns the future of the Middle East. They themselves pointed out its significance, “Let him come to parliament and speak. Then the right to hope will come into play.” That is what they said. They said that once Rêber Apo says that he will dissolve the organization and give up the armed struggle, the so-called ‘Right to Hope’ will be activated. In other words, they made a commitment in this respect, they made a promise. This is not only Devlet Bahceli’s promise; this is a promise of the government. Because the government also supported and embraced Devlet Bahceli’s position. It was a call that was planned and prepared by both Bahceli and Erdogan. Rêber Apo gave the necessary response in a short time. He said, “If you give me the opportunity, I can move the process to legal and political grounds.”

Of course, the key word here is legal and political. This is how Rêber Apo understands this process. He understands the call for the cessation of the armed struggle as moving it to the legal and political process, bringing it to that process. That is what he clearly emphasized, and so, on February 27th, Rêber Apo made the ‘Call for Peace and Democratic Society’. Rêber Apo has said what he wants to say. As a direct response, immediately afterwards, the PKK also made it clear that it would fulfill the requirements of this call of Rêber Apo. It said and accepted that it would fulfill the requirements of that call without any hesitation or interpretation. Subsequently, the HPG also declared that it would put the call for a ceasefire into practice. Now what should be done in the face of this situation? The government was to immediately lift the isolation of Rêber Apo. What happened? After more than a month, forty days, there was a meeting. The Imrali delegation met with Rêber Apo. Such an important process, such an important discussion, but the society is being put on hold. How can it be that the meeting only takes place after 40 days? This shows the government’s inadequate approach and hesitation on this issue. To what extent will they really enter into the political and legal process? Will they prepare the ground for the solution of this problem on the basis of a political and legal process? The public opinion, particularly our people and the democratic forces, is expressing serious doubts regarding the government’s approach. On the other hand, the mayor of Istanbul and many people have been arrested. What kind of process will develop with so many arrests and so much pressure? In such a situation, people naturally and rightly express their concerns and doubts.

But at the end, there still was a meeting, even though it took a long time. There was already a meeting with the president. And as you mentioned, most recently there was a meeting with the Ministry of Justice. This shows that at least something is being done. But there is still no practice. The only thing that is continuing is the talking in the rare meetings, without any practical change in their approach. It is still not known what the outcome of the meeting with the Ministry of Justice will bring. They just said, “We will look into it.” In fact, Gulistan Kocyigit recently pointed out that this meeting should not be given too much meaning, saying, “It was a beginning”. They, too, are hesitant about whether the government and the Minister of Justice will take any steps. And there was a suggestion to change the observation committees to give them a new form. We do not find it right. Neither on March 12 nor on September 12, nor at any other time during the most fascist military dictatorships in Turkey, was there any such practice. The courts gave a sentence; whether it was 15 years or however long he would serve, they would let him out as soon as he had served his time. When there was already a trial, they would apply good behavior when necessary, or they would not apply good behavior. The courts were already evaluating this, according to themselves, during the court process.

Now these negotiations have taken place. We are waiting for the outcome of these negotiations. The whole public is waiting and wondering. What is important for us and for our people is that a practical step is taken. This needs to be done without spreading it over such a long period of time. Rêber Apo has said what he wanted to say at the moment. The organization has also said what it wants at the moment. Public opinion also embraces this process. Turkey’s largest opposition party, CHP, even the largest party in the last election, openly embraces this process; they say that they will support it and that the issue should be brought to parliament. It needs to be brought to parliament. In this respect, if the Kurdish question or any other issue is to be solved, it needs to be brought to parliament. If the main opposition party and other parties demand this, then the government must do this. But so far we have not seen this.

You emphasize that those in power are not taking any clear, practical steps. What stage has the process reached so far in your assessment?

For them, for the PKK to convene a congress and dissolve itself is most essential. This demand was answered. Rêber Apo made a call in this direction, and we said that we would fulfill the requirements, but conditions must be created to ensure that this congress is held in a healthy way. We have said before that the founder of this party is Rêber Apo. The PKK cannot take such decisions without convening a congress. Even if the PKK congress convenes, it still cannot take such decisions if Rêber Apo does not participate. He must be enabled to actively participate. This congress will not be a congress that will last for a day or two. He may not be able to participate directly, but there are more than enough opportunities to participate now. The technique is so advanced. Rêber Apo can participate in such a congress in several ways.

There is nothing in the PKK, in the freedom movement, that speaks against holding a congress or wants to block it. It is only not taking place because the government has not fulfilled the requirements. The whole public should be aware of this. If Rêber Apo is not enabled to participate actively and effectively, such a congress cannot take place. In other words, the decisions that Rêber Apo stated in the call cannot be taken. That can only happen with his participation.

Now, of course, we still want this process to develop and deepen. This is also the approach coming from Rêber Apo. There is nothing in our approach, in the approach of Rêber Apo, in the approach of public opinion, or in the approach of Kurdish society that would hinder the process. On the contrary, there is very strong support by all democratic forces, political parties, and society in general for shifting this process to legal and political grounds. Even international powers, from Germany to the US, have expressed their support for such a process. The internal as well as external conditions are favorable. So if the Kurdish question, the issue of Turkey’s democratization, is not brought to a political and legal ground, if decisions are not taken to bring it to a political and legal ground, if parliament is not activated to bring it to a political and legal ground, the government is of course responsible for this.

For such a process to reach certain stages, for it to develop, it is essential for the parliament to step in. How will anything happen without the parliament stepping in? What will the word of any minister, anyone’s word, mean? The parliament must be activated, and decisions must come from there. A solution that does not involve the parliament cannot be a solution. We have said that we will take the necessary steps if the conditions are met. There is no problem in this regard. The problem is, what steps will this government take? How will it engage the parliament and create the political and legal ground? This is what needs to be discussed. They just say, “Hold a congress and stop the armed struggle”. This is not the way.

Since Rêber Apo has made this call, they themselves have to do what is necessary. After the reading of Rêber Apo’s ‘Call for Peace and Democratic Society’, our dear friend Sirri Sureyya Onder emphasized that all this can only be realized if the legal and political grounds are provided. The state delegation in Imrali also approved this statement. The government must fulfill its requirements for the development of this process.

In a few days, the declared and implemented unilateral ceasefire will be two months old. During this time, the Turkish army has continued to attack the guerrilla and the areas in which it is located. Within this framework, the guerrilla forces have launched a couple of actions that fall within the framework of legitimate self-defense. What is the message coming from the guerrilla?

After the call for a ceasefire, the attacks against the guerrilla had to stop. This is something that had been emphasized in 2013. When the process started in 2013, the clashes had stopped, and the attacks had stopped. Now the process is being taken to a new, more advanced stage. Why aren’t the attacks stopping? This is the approach of some circles seeking a cheap victory. They have attacked for so many years. In 2017, 2018, 2019… they always said that they were so close to victory, but at the end, what was always the result? They
failed to achieve their goals. Now they are continuing these attacks in order to gain some cheap victories. They are still calling from helicopters and dropping leaflets from airplanes to the guerrilla areas to call for surrender. Look at this shamelessness! Where is the sincerity? As if the guerrilla would surrender. They fall for their own mentality that they created throughout these nearly fifty years of war. It is this very understanding that currently is the biggest obstacle to the solution of the Kurdish question.

If that is the situation and that is the position that the Turkish state takes, then a different stance can be adopted in response. Then it is up to the command of the guerrilla to question what this is all about and, if necessary, to decide to sacrificially fight. This is about a society, about a struggle that cannot be stopped by such an attack. It is up to the guerrilla to respond, and I can openly say that if things continue as they are, the guerrilla will find tougher ways to respond. It is unacceptable that they want to try to break the unilateral ceasefire, in which there are no planned major actions and operations on our part; they will come and attack without restraint. For our part, we declared a ceasefire, and they want to wipe us out. If this continues to be their attitude, the guerrilla will find an appropriate response. Anyone who attacks during a ceasefire is only interested in annihilation. And the guerrilla will not allow annihilation and will develop appropriate responses.

The ruling AKP has significantly increased the pressure on the entire opposition. The latter is resisting this and is insisting, among other things, that early elections take place. How do you assess the opposition’s rapprochement?

We assess the attitude of the majority of the opposition as positive. Sure, the CHP has made great mistakes in the past. They have committed crimes. They paved the way for the systematic and forceful appointment of trustees. Now they are dealing with them themselves. We had criticized them a lot in the past, but since this process, the attitude of the CHP administration has been positive. They say that they support the process and that it is necessary to approach the issue on a democratic dimension. They support the issue being brought to parliament.

Now, if the AKP government, the AKP-MHP coalition, really intends to solve the Kurdish question, if they want to solve it on the basis of Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood, what should they do? Thank and involve the opposition in this process. This is what any government would do. Can there be anything more valuable and meaningful than this if such a situation arises, if the current government starts a process on this issue and the opposition supports it? But now, the opposition is wanted to be eliminated. It is almost as if the opposition is being told, “Don’t get involved in this”. The approach towards the opposition is crippling this process from the very beginning. The fact that this process does not reach the desired result is partly the result of this understanding. It is important to get public support, the support of the whole society. Only with the support of society can this process move forward. As they say, in 2013, there was no support from society, there was no political support, the CHP was against it, the MHP was against it, and so it didn’t work. Now, since the biggest opposition force is supporting it, it must be given due value. It is necessary to criticize this attitude of the AKP government.

Isn’t the existence of the Kurdish question Turkey’s most fundamental problem? Putting so much pressure on the opposition, trying to exclude it from the process, only enlarges the problem. Both Erdogan and Bahceli were talking about the survival of Turkey and the state. If it is a question of survival, then it can be solved by social consensus. Social consensus is very important in this regard. If this is not being done, it needs to be seriously criticized. In this respect, the opposition’s demand for early elections is justified and legitimate. We already wanted elections to be held immediately after the municipal elections of March 31, 2019. The preference of society had shifted. Governments survive and govern based on the tendencies of society. But on March 31st, it was clearly shown that the government’s social base had shrunk and the opposition’s had risen significantly. In any other place in the world, early elections would have been called immediately. We made a call at that time, but the CHP did not pay attention. It was talking about ‘normalization’ and so on. But this government does not tend towards any form of ‘normalization’.

The forces that are elected by the will of the people and have their support will have a much easier time solving the issue. In this sense, it is their logical right to call for early elections. In this situation, it only falls to us to assess the existing situation. The other day Eren Keskin questioned, “Will the Kurds wait for the government to change?” He is right in this questioning. But there is an existing government now. If it decides to take steps to move the process forward, then we will not oppose it and say that we are waiting for another government. Our stance is that we are always ready for a democratic solution to the Kurdish question. If the government does not show an appropriate attitude, it only reveals and exposes its own reality. That is how we see it.

Let me also take this opportunity to say this. Some opposition groups are also not approaching the truth. There are those who speak on some opposition TV channels, questioning what the DEM Party is doing and if it has made an alliance with the AKP. There are approaches that express a kind of paranoia. The current situation is not about what those in power say or don’t say. It is about the issue of democratization. This means that they have to take on more responsibility themselves. They must develop their own plans and take the initiative. If the government doesn’t take a step, then they have to criticize even more and build up pressure. All opposition media and political parties need to put pressure on the government. They must publicly question why the government is stalling, why it is not producing any solution. This is a issue of democratization. This is how we and the Kurdish people see it. Without democratization, the issue cannot be solved. With our attitude, we are forcing steps to be taken for democratization. The rest of the opposition should also push for this.

Developments in the region also have a strong influence on Turkey’s policy. The conflicts between Turkey and Israel in Syria have recently increased. However, there are also attempts to come to an agreement. What do you have to say about the conflicts in Syria, and what is really behind Erdogan’s anti-Israel mask?

Turkey is supposedly anti-Israel, and Israel often publishes statements using rhetoric against Turkey. But one shouldn’t take Turkey’s evaluations against Israel very seriously, because they do not reflect the reality. Turkey’s statements are to satisfy its own public opinion. Because public opinion in Turkey is sensitive about Palestine and Gaza. It reacts to the massacres taking place in Palestine. That’s why they use anti-Israel rhetoric. Erdogan makes statements from time to time, but they do not reflect his true politics. Soon everyone will see this more clearly. Turkey and Israel will come to a reconciliation. This was revealed in the meeting between Netanyahu and Trump. Trump said that he will do it and told Netanyahu not to be too harsh against Turkey.

So, with Trump coming to power, there will be a reconciliation between Turkey and Israel. But this will be with some pressure from the US. Still, the problems between Israel and Turkey will continue at a certain level because Israel does not trust Turkey. And even if Turkey reconciles with Israel, it reconciles due to politics, due to certain US pressure. Israel has hit the places where Turkey was going to settle, and some Turkish engineers were killed. At this level, Israel lashed out at Turkey.

In the Middle East, the US will act and do what Israel says. It will not confront Turkey; it will reconcile. But this reconciliation will mainly be a reconciliation that is in Israel’s interest, that is, a reconciliation that takes Israel into consideration. Trump will make such a compromise.

Turkey is in a very difficult situation right now; it is stuck. It is not comfortable politically and economically. In an environment where there is so much unemployment in Turkey, where the problems are aggravated, where there is no comfort, where Turkey is confronting the Kurds, and where it is in conflict with them, Turkey will submit to such a compromise. It has no other choice.

In Syria, the Baathist regime has collapsed, but the problems still continue. The Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is held up as a possible solution to the problems. The Kurdish conference for unity and a common attitude took place in Qamishlo. To what extent can it contribute to a solution to the situation?

Yes, HTS came and settled in Damascus, but with its understanding and mentality, there will be neither stability nor a solution in Syria. Let alone being a solution approach, it is an approach that paves the grounds for conflict, an approach that will create instability. From this point of view, the approach of the Democratic Autonomous Administration in North and East Syria and the program it puts forward can be the only solution for Syria. If there is to be a solution in Syria, if Syria is to be truly democratized, of course the model of North and East Syria will have a strong impact; the Rojava Revolution will have a strong impact. That is what can be highlighted.

Not only Druze and Alawites, but also the majority of Sunni Arabs see that HTS will not be a solution. HTS should not be seen as an organization supported by Sunni Arabs. It has the support of at most 30 percent of Sunni Arabs. The rest of them do not accept HTS. The Arab people do not accept HTS’s monist, oppressive, and self-setting approach. The east of Syria, for example, has always wanted to live more autonomously from Damascus. This was the case in the past, and it is the case now. In this respect, of course, the Rojava Revolution will play a role in the shaping of North and East Syria and all of Syria in the future. Its understanding of women’s freedom, its approach to other peoples, its democratic understanding… All of these will have an impact on the shaping of the new Syria.

In this respect, the conference is, of course, important. Previously, the ENKS was one with the mercenaries and the gangs, one with the invasion attacks of the Turkish state. In other words, they were opposing the Rojava Revolution. They stood against North and East Syria. But when the Coalition went to Damascus, the alliance they were in fell apart. They had no other choice. They tried to come to a compromise with the Autonomous Administration, with the PYD and the other parties. In this respect, both the PYD and the people of North and East Syria have shown a really mature approach. Until yesterday, they were opposing and supporting the invaders. They supported both the occupation of Afrin and the occupation of Serekaniye. They sided with the Turkish state, the mercenaries, and the gangs. But when that process ended, they realized that it was not working; they had to come to an agreement with Rojava. The people of North and East Syria and the Kurds did not say “no” to them. They said, “If they leave the alliance, if they will not continue their old attitude, if they will not side with the Turkish state’s occupations, if they will not side with those mercenaries and gangs, if they will come to the side of the Kurds, this is a good thing.” And the Kurds welcomed them. Yes, this conference should be seen like that.

It is a good thing that they are united like this, that a section of the Kurds give up siding with the forces fighting against the struggle here, against the gains in Rojava, and side with the Kurds. In this respect, we considered this conference important. The co-presidency of our Executive Council sent a message, saying that we support it.

Of course, this conference is related to the process initiated by Rêber Apo. Rêber Apo wanted the relations between the Kurds to improve and to continue the work for a national conference. He has this approach. If we remember, in 2014, when Rêber Apo initiated such a process, he called for a Kurdish conference. This still accounts for the current process.

Of course, it is also important to note that the Turkish state is the most hostile to a Kurdish conference and Kurdish unity. In this respect, Rêber Apo’s call, the softening of relations with Turkey, facilitated the organization of such a unity conference, a joint conference among Kurds. In this respect, we also saw the conference and their forming of a joint delegation as positive. While doing this, they should think about the democratization of the whole of Syria. It is necessary to defend the Kurdish people, but Kurds should also play their role in the democratization of Syria. Otherwise, if they just say “Kurds are my people” or if Syria is not democratized, it will not make much sense. Tomorrow, this non-democratic regime will form new alliances and will again attack the Kurds. In this respect, this conference should not only contribute to creating Kurdish unity, but it should also care about the democratization of Syria. It must play its role in this regard.

Now that we have reached the end of our conversation, what would you like to say about the upcoming first of May, the workers’ day of struggle?

Before evaluating May 1, I commemorate with gratitude and respect all the martyrs who have been martyred in May 1 celebrations and workers’ struggles since the execution of the four revolutionary workers in the USA, which is the source of May 1. In Turkey, 34 revolutionaries and patriots were massacred on May 1, 1977. I remember them with respect and gratitude. I personally was also in that clash. I was right in the heart of the action that day. We put many wounded and martyred people in taxis and pickup trucks and tried to send them to hospitals. I am a living witness to that.

The significance of May 1, the fact that it is celebrated so strongly every year, stems, of course, from the laborers who struggled and those who were martyred in this struggle. It is necessary to keep their memories alive. While commemorating the martyrs on May 1, I also remember the martyrdom of Ibrahim Bilgin and Mehmet Karasungur, who gave their lives on May 2. I remember them with respect and gratitude.

May 1 is important for us. We no longer see May 1 as just a Workers’ Day. Yes, it is a day of solidarity for laborers. But it is also a day of socialism. One needs to evaluate it like this. May 1 is the day of socialism. When we say workers’ solidarity day, the struggles of the laborers, the struggles that brought about May 1, are all socialist. Because they were socialist-minded, they were pioneers in this labor struggle, and they were martyred.

Today, as a day of solidarity, the social ground of May 1 has expanded even more. Because capitalist modernity has become the enemy of the whole society. There is a reality of capitalist modernity that destroys and eliminates not only workers but the whole society. It decays and destroys society, decays culture, and leaves no human and social values. The struggle against capitalism is not only the struggle of workers but the struggle of all people, particularly of women. Again, the struggle of those who want an ecological society has come to the stage. When evaluating May 1, it is necessary to evaluate it in
a more comprehensive and wider dimension. It should be considered as the struggle of the whole society for freedom, the struggle for democracy, the democratic social struggle against capitalist modernity. It is not enough to limit it to a day of solidarity for workers only. Yes, it is a day of solidarity for working people; that is true. But this day must be assessed more broadly. Those who gave their lives in order for May 1 to gain its meaning have always struggled to eliminate this evil of capitalism and create a more socialist world, a democratic socialist world.

May 1 in Turkey has always been a day of great struggle. Perhaps Turkey is one of the countries in the world that embraces May 1 the most. When I say Turkey, I mean the Kurds and all other peoples. Kurds have always embraced May 1 and have always taken part in the May 1 struggle. In this respect, this year’s May 1 should be more meaningful. It should be seen as a struggle of a great alliance of peoples, laborers, and women against capitalist modernity, as a struggle for democracy. The struggle for democracy is also a struggle against the current power. It is a struggle for an alliance against the power. Because the current government still resists democracy. It has undemocratic approaches. There are new arrests. There are antidemocratic practices. May 1 is also a struggle against these antidemocratic practices.

On the other hand, it is necessary to turn May 1 into a day on which Rêber Apo’s ‘Call for Peace and Democratic Society’ is also raised. Because peace and democratic society are not something that can only be realized through the efforts of Kurds. We can create a democratic society with the struggle of all the peoples of Turkey, laborers and women. A democratic society means a democratic Turkey. It means creating a democratic Turkey based on an organized society. An organized society means a struggling society. It is creating an alternative democratic society against capitalist modernity. One of the most fundamental goals of creating a democratic society is the struggle against capitalist modernity. In this respect, the Kurdish people should participate very strongly in the May 1 celebrations everywhere. In terms of creating a democratic society, they should show a common stance with the laborers and particularly the women in Turkey. They should show a common attitude. In this way, they should strengthen Rêber Apo’s call.

The ‘Call for Peace and Democratic Society’ can only be strengthened and achieve results with the efforts and support of the democratic forces. It is wrong to expect only from the government. It is necessary to get the support of democratic forces, socialists, and laborers to grow the struggle for a democratic society together with them and to make this process a success. In this respect, I call on all Kurdish people to take to the streets on May 1. I congratulate everyone on May 1 and wish them success in their struggle.

Footnote:

1 Referring to peoples leader Abdullah Ocalan.