Statement by TKP Central Committee on World Peace Day: 

OUR PATH to PEACE and BROTHERHOOD 

This statement, issued by TKP Central Committee on World Peace Day, includes important and timely assessments on the ongoing "peace" process in Turkey.

https://www.tkp.org.tr/en/agenda/ourpathtopeaceandbrotherhood/

September 1, 1939 marks the beginning of the Second World War, a catastrophe that claimed the lives of more than 80 million people. The war erupted as rivalries among imperialist powers reached their peak. It erupted because fascist Germany and its allies, Italy and Japan, pursued a racist, expansionist ideology and an obsession with eradicating communism. It erupted because imperialist states such as Britain, the United States, and France, driven by greed, sought to unleash Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union. It erupted because multinational monopolies saw in bloodshed a chance for profit. The course of this devastating war shifted when the Soviet Union—losing 27 million of its people in the struggle against the invaders—halted the Nazi armies and drove them back deep into Europe. With Germany’s surrender on May 9, the war ended. September 1 was declared World Peace Day so that humanity would never forget the causes and consequences of this bloody reckoning, and so that it would stand firm against imperialist wars.

When people talk, everyone claims to desire peace. But there are always those who profit from war. Enormous corporations that reap vast fortunes from production and trade of arms inevitably seek more conflict and greater tension. As the barbaric capitalism system generates crises and fuels competition, the frictions between countries sharpen. Capitalist states, hungry for a larger share of resources at both regional and international levels, resort to armed force under one pretext or another. Nationalist passions and religious beliefs are exploited to drive poor people into killing other poor people of different nations—while the real victors are once again the capitalists. Governments cornered at home may also turn to war as a tool of political survival. In short, the word “peace” in the mouths of those who rob, oppress, and trample on justice—those who think not of society or country but only of their own gain—cannot be taken seriously. A government that builds its domestic rule on injustice will carry the same injustice into its foreign policy. 

War is vile; war is ruinous. War can only be resorted just when it becomes unavoidable in resisting occupation, in standing against a tyrannical aggressor. The War of Independence in Anatolia after the First World War, fought against invasion, was a just war. The uprisings of peoples against imperialism are just wars. The struggles for liberation led by communist partisans in countries invaded by fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan during the Second World War were just wars. A world without war can only be a world of justice, a world without exploitation. Peace cannot be demanded without demanding equality.

Today, in Turkey, a process is unfolding that some call “a Turkey free of terrorism,” others call “process of peace and brotherhood,” and still others present it as “the construction of a democratic society.” On this matter, numerous statements have been made by the two partners of the People’s Alliance—the ruling bloc composed of most notably Erdoğan’s AKP and Bahçeli’s MHP (Nationalist Movement Party)—as well as by Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned leader of the PKK, by the DEM Party (the parliamentary party representing Kurdish nationalist movement), and by the PKK leadership based in the Kandil Mountains. The Grand National Assembly of Turkey has even established a “National Solidarity, Brotherhood, and Democracy” commission. Whether viewed through the lens of domestic politics, foreign policy, or regional dynamics, this process is of course related to “peace.” Ignoring a problem that has for decades shaped the lives of our citizens, cost tens of thousands of lives, and acquired regional—even international—dimensions, or reducing it merely to a matter of “security,” is futile. There is a Kurdish question in Turkey. TKP has long addressed this question in its programmatic documents, and has updated its positions through congresses and conferences. At the core of these assessments lies one basic principle: the Kurdish question is not separate from, nor superior to, other problems facing the country. It must be confronted within the broader struggle against exploitation and imperialism, in the name of equality, secularism, independence, and the defense of the Republic.

Opposing the current “peace process” does not mean opposing the resolution of the country’s problems, nor does it mean rejecting peace and brotherhood. TKP stands for peace and brotherhood, but it stands against this process. TKP’s opposition is not because the actors involved have adopted a softer language toward one another; not because those who once boasted “we will crush them” now speak endlessly of brotherhood; not because certain figures have sat at the table; not because mass arrests and the appointment of trustees to mayorships—which is used as blackmail—might come to an end. TKP opposes because of the foundations, the aims, and the likely outcomes of this process. 

This most recent process began with the operation that toppled Assad in Syria and brought jihadist forces to power, and it seems to have reached an impasse again in Syria. In the civil war that began in 2011, and which took on a new character with imperialist intervention, the actors of today’s process, despite their contradictions, eventually found themselves on the same side. The AKP made Turkey a party to imperialist intervention alongside the US, the UK, Israel, and Qatar, while simultaneously treating the PYD as an ally, even alongside jihadist forces, against the Syrian state. Even if this alliance fractured, the latest phase—culminating in HTS’s entry into Damascus in 2024—once more aligned their interests. For us, the question in Syria was never whether Assad’s Baath regime was good or bad. There was much to criticize in the old Syrian administration. But none of this justified the intervention of leading imperialist powers and Israel, the recruitment of jihadist fighters from across the globe, and the drive to tear Syria apart. We repeat: despite their differences, the AKP, MHP, and DEM converged on policies that served the same ends in Syria. Because the foundation itself is rotten, it produces crises today and will produce even greater ones tomorrow. 

The AKP government’s declaration that Syria’s unity and territorial integrity are a “red line” is meaningless. The fragmentation of Syria began in 2011, and took on a new stage with HTS’s seizure of Damascus and power. As we have repeatedly warned, many countries—especially Israel and the UK—planned for a criminal organization like HTS to take power in Syria in order to be able to intervene at will. The AKP government’s embrace and unwavering support of HTS, if truly framed as a defense of Syria’s territorial integrity, is nothing but a fiasco. HTS is not even a unified structure: it is a patchwork of armed groups operating autonomously under its banner. To expect political actors or ethnic communities concentrated in different regions of Syria to recognize HTS’s authority is not only baseless but also absurd. This policy is unfounded, dangerous, and—no matter how wrapped in slogans such as “we will fight Israel if necessary”—destructive for Turkey itself. 

No sound policy can grow out of a rotten foundation. The Syrian impasse within today’s process in Turkey, can only be resolved if Turkey steps in as the guarantor of Arab-Kurdish brotherhood in Syria. At first glance this may sound like a noble mission, but in truth it expresses nothing more than interests of capitalist class: it reflects the agenda of big capital and signals a new stage in the fusion of Turkish and Kurdish bourgeois interests. Ideologically, the ruling bloc itself presents this process as a “Turkish-Islamic-Kurdish synthesis.” We call this project Neo-Ottomanism. It is built on expectations of eroding Turkey’s national borders and exacting revenge against the Republic. And such a role for Turkey is only possible with the blessing of Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom—at a steep price. Imperialism and expansionism have never brought peace. They will not bring Turkish-Kurdish-Arab brotherhood, nor will they deliver stability.

Some of those who endlessly glorify the current “process” insist that it is unfolding in defiance of, and against, the United States and Israel. According to them, they have “broken the grand game.” But what game, exactly, have they broken in Syria? No answer! Let us press further: with ever-deepening cooperation with NATO, which imperialist plan is the AKP supposed to thwart? When the entire economy is in the grip of conglomerates, when all resources are funneled to capital, when endless concessions are made to imperialist centers in exchange for hot money and investment—what imperialist project is being obstructed? And how will the threat posed by Israel be addressed by carefully dismantling the radical wing of Hamas, by weakening Iran, by sidelining Hezbollah in Lebanon, and by using Azerbaijan—today one of Israel’s closest allies—as an “intermediary”? Does anyone seriously believe that our people will fail to grasp that, given these domestic, economic, and foreign policies, entering an open war with Israel would mean walking straight into a carefully laid trap? The struggle against imperialism and Israeli aggression must rest on principle, on program, on policies for peoples, on the goal of independence and sovereignty, on a planned and statist economy, and under the flag of the Republic and secularism. Without these, one is left oscillating between servile collaboration and reckless adventurism. 

They speak of “brotherhood,” of “domestic peace.” But how can brotherhood take root in a country where social injustice is at its peak, where bosses reign while workers are condemned to poverty? On what basis will Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood be built under the leadership of exploiting classes who live in mortal fear of workers and the poor uniting against this parasitic order? Nothing good can come from the merger of Kurdish elites—who rose from tribal chieftaincies into ownership of powerful conglomerates—with TÜSİAD bosses who plunder the country! 

We know well the intention behind attempts to ground “brotherhood” not in the Republic but in the mythologized “spirit of unity” of the Battle of Manzikert a thousand years ago. Today, as political power and Kurdish nationalism try to convince society that the roots of its problems lie in the founding of the Republic, they reach for new historical references. Thus, the process invokes reactionary figures like Sheikh Said, Said Nursi, and Turgut Özal. But today’s problems cannot be solved by leaping backward a hundred years—or a thousand. That is why the process shows signs of deadlock: it cannot provide answers to the present. 

Of course, not all of Turkey’s problems were born today. Many accumulated over time; others inherited from the past took on new dimensions. Yet not a single major problem in Turkey can be solved without challenging the existing social system. To claim otherwise—to suggest that our country’s deep contradictions can be resolved while preserving the order of monopolies and religious sects that condemn the overwhelming majority to poverty—is to lie to the people. Shamefully, even some left-wing figures, once defined by their opposition to the system, now grow excited over desperate searches within it. The real solution lies in a collectivist, pro-people awakening. This is why the Communist Party of Turkey consistently advocates a Socialist Republic.  

At this point we must restate why TKP regards the founding of the Republic as a revolutionary, progressive achievement. The Republic of Turkey was born from a struggle against foreign occupation and the Ottoman Palace in the dark aftermath of an imperialist war. It was a polarization between revolution and counter-revolution—a polarization seen in Anatolia, Europe, and Asia alike. The National Struggle allied with revolutionary forces of its time, frustrated imperialist plans, rose against the decaying Ottoman throne, and opened the path to historic progressive transformations. It is this revolutionary heritage, and the will that forged it, that we defend. But after this revolutionary period, the capitalist class gradually consolidated power, turned the Republic against the poor masses, and stripped it of its popular essence. To refuse to confront this class domination today, to accept the reign of multinational corporations while “reckoning” with the Republic’s founding, is nothing but reaction at its core. The Kurdish people do not need reactionary solutions; they need a program that confronts exploitation, tribalism, religious sects, and imperialism. That program belongs to all of us, to all workers—it is what unites us. 

To tamper with the Treaty of Lausanne, to seek to “renew” or even abolish it, or to whisper that “Sevres would have been preferable,” is as divisive as it is destructive. Lausanne was an agreement with the world system of its day, concluded after the War of Independence. Its main Parties—aside from the Soviet Union—were the imperialist powers. To treat Lausanne shallowly as either victory or defeat is misguided. Dragging Lausanne into political games today, twisting and stretching it in every direction—which should be recognized as the formal conclusion of the War of Independence—will only plunge our country and region into deeper conflicts and wars. It is certain that these conflicts and wars will unfold entirely at the initiative, and the interests, of the major imperialist powers.

The expansion, dilution, or blurring of the Republic of Turkey’s borders—whether through autonomy or any other formula—cannot create brotherhood or unity, nor can it, as some claim, open the road to freedom of Kurdish people. On the contrary, such moves would only unleash new tensions and conflicts over resources. It is self-evident that ethnic-based rivalries bring no benefit to anyone. We must therefore also warn those close to the government who insist on promoting the illusion of Turkey “growing” by extending its borders: coveting the lands of other countries is not only morally indefensible, it is politically reckless, as it risks triggering developments that could lead Turkey to disaster. That some who once opposed the AKP now find themselves excited by these expansionist impulses should alone be a sobering warning for republicans. The Republic cannot be defended unless one confronts the class character of the existing system and the conditions that brought—and keep—the AKP in power. 

In assessing this process, we must also look squarely at the political and ideological nature of its architects. For nearly a quarter of a century, the AKP has pursued a counter-revolutionary mission, dragging the country backward in every sphere. On the other side, we see a movement that tries to combine Kurdish nationalism, liberalism, and a Marxism-free “leftism”—and which has converged with the AKP on core issues such as secularism, the Republic, class struggle, and imperialism. To argue that this convergence will democratize Turkey is sheer fantasy. Meanwhile, the process itself is accompanied by political arrests, censorship of the press, persecution of journalists, and relentless attacks on the working class. The notion that “if the peace process succeeds, these practices will cease” has no connection to the country’s realities. Nor can the claim—promoted by some on the “left”—that the process should be supported to weaken the Palace regime be taken seriously.

Peace and brotherhood in Turkey cannot be squeezed into the narrow framework of the current process. On the contrary, we are concerned that because it rests on false foundations, this process will only generate new crises. We issued similar warnings during the previous “solution process,” predicting that it would deepen rather than resolve conflicts—and events proved us right. Today’s process—designed around the needs of the capitalist class, shaped in interaction with regional maneuvers driven by the US, the UK, and Israel, and guided by a fundamentally reactionary outlook—cannot produce a healthy outcome, no matter its course. 

As it stands, the process is more likely to stoke fresh hostilities than to secure brotherhood. Intolerance toward the Kurdish people’s language, culture, and very existence is once again coming to the surface. Once again, nationalism feeds nationalism. In such a climate, the TKP does not even dignify with a response the accusations hurled against it—whether of “not wanting terrorism to end” or of “anti-Kurdish hostility.” Our Party has no intention of legitimizing the “peace” of NATO, religious sects, regional reactionaries, monopolies, or tribal elites. We hold with absolute conviction that genuine peace and brotherhood can only be achieved by resisting exploitation and imperialism, and by upholding secularism and the Republic. 

Long live peace and brotherhood. Long live the Republic. Long live independence and secularism. Long live socialism! 

Communist Party of Turkey

Central Committee