Jonathan Powell, who worked as Tony Blair's consultant in the IRA negotiations, came to Turkey during the Gezi crisis in 2013. The U.S. broadcast warning upon warning with great enthusiasm, while the Western media reared opinions of Prime Minister Erdoğan "moving towards dictatorship and abandoning reform processes."
Contrary to this sentiment, the experienced British diplomat Powell said the following: "Fifty years from now, you will be talking about Kurdish peace, and not about the Gezi crisis. Losing this opportunity because of Gezi will be a shame."
The leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcalan, made the same evaluation about the Gezi crisis. He did not disregard the faults of the government but spoke about how it had turned into a coup process targeting the reconciliation process between Turkey and the Kurds. Despite all expectations and incitements, Kurds did not get involved as they knew the provocative totalitarian secularists were those responsible for the legitimacy of the deaths of 40,000 Kurds in the last 35 years.
Turkey is currently facing a coup process that began on Dec. 17 under the pretense of a corruption probe. All eyes are once again pointed toward Öcalan and the Kurds. In his first statement Öcalan said the Dec. 17 operation was a coup attempt and the Kurds would not assist in fueling the fire. What happened next? Not even a day passed before the wiretappings were posted on Twitter with the aim of discrediting Öcalan.
Finally, on March 21 during Nevruz celebrations, a letter from Öcalan was read out to crowds in Diyarbakır. The war lobby expected the emergence of a crisis regarding the letter, or Öcalan to withdraw from the process due to threats.
Öcalan threw the war lobby a curve ball. "What we have been experiencing since the last Nevruz is a great expression of a fork junction. There are two options at this point. One is sustaining a 200 year-old conspiratorial, pro-coup-minded regime leaning against capitalist modernity through reintegration.
The other is resolution through disintegration of conspiratorial, pro-coupminded mechanisms by a democratic, constitutional regime that has been obtained through the most comprehensive democratic reforms in a historically settled Turkish-Kurdish relationship," the letter read.
Although the peace establishment is perceived as a threat, it is enough for the AK Party opposition to reveal their non-political intentions. The fact that the attempt to end 35 years of bloodshed is seen as the biggest obstacle in the disposition of Erdoğan, gives a pretty good picture of the character of the opposition.
The problem is not simply Erdoğan or a power struggle. The problem is which power mentality the reconciliation process has been undercutting throughout our 200-year-old history. Erdoğan is a valuable figure in opposing this 200-year-old ruling paradigm in the world, the region and Turkey. The reason behind the targeting of Erdoğan is that he, intentionally or unintentionally, has placed dynamite in the main axis of the reconciliation process and the old real politic of "one minute."
What is happening in Turkey and Egypt are in essence an existential war of regeneration in the 21st century, rooted in the recognition of a 200-year-old colonial tutelage.
The inability to label Morsi's usurpation of the decree of the Egyptian people as a "coup" and the fact that this coup is supported by the U.S. and the EU is a result of this mentality.
The staging of the same scenario after the Gezi crisis in Turkey is for the same reasons.
A limited analysis based on casual political evaluations about the faults of Erdoğan or Morsi, are actually the solicited result. This causes unnecessary confusion and leads one to miss the bigger picture.
Will hegemonic world order adapt itself to the new century with coups under new concepts such as freedom, democracy, corruption and justice, or will the people finally reach the possibility of instituting their own fate and decree?
That is the basic question.
Regarding the future of the process, Öcalan says: "Up until now, the process was based on dialogue and carried great significance.
During this process, both parties tested each other in terms of goodwill, realism and competence.
Despite the government's procrastination, one-sided conduct, avoidance of the legal base and prolonging, both parties are determined to seek peace. However, along with being important, dialogue processes carry no commitment, and therefore do not establish sufficient trust in permanent peace.
At this point, legal frameworks for the systematics of negotiation are inevitable."
These are quite appropriate suggestions and are most likely also shared by the government.
The reconciliation process will reach a new phase after March 30. For this is the only option left.