The Shockwaves of a Declaration - TKP General Secretary Kemal Okuyan

Sep 10, 2026

Upload by Ophelia

A short TKP declaration released on August 1, 2025 triggers widespread political and media shock, as many figures from diverse tendencies publicly endorse its message. The text rejects questioning Turkey’s republic and the outcomes of the Treaty of Lausanne, as well as border changes and “neo-Ottoman” or identity-based political structures, while calling for peace, brotherhood, and an independent secular egalitarian country with a planned economy. The discussion argues the government’s “peace process” reflects US/UK-linked strategy and exposes how Turkish nationalism and Kurdish nationalism converge on rotten ground.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages21

Reading Time53 min

AccessFree to download

The Shockwaves of a Declaration

Reaction to TKP’s August 1, 2025 declaration

Contents of the declaration and its political targets

How US/UK guidance shapes the process

Turkey, Syria, and the role of Kurdish autonomy

The core claim: common ground is rotten and transformation is needed

| 4 The Struggle Against Border Changes and the Treaty of Lausanne | | 6 Socialism in One Country and the Founding of TKP | | | 8 On Revolution... | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | SEPTEMBER 2025
| | |
2 | TKP General Secretary Kemal Okuyan: The Shockwaves of a Declaration
| | |
Communist Party of Turkey at 105
Marking its 105th anniversary in the midst of new struggles that will shape Turkey’s future
Photo by: Gökçe Çobanoğlu | | | | | | The Shockwaves ofa Declaration Kemal Okuyan-TKP General Secretary On August 1, 2025, the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) released a short declaration to the public and opened it for signatures. Within days, countless politicians, trade unionists, intellectuals, artists, and academics declared their support. The media, which usually prefers to ignore the TKP, this time could not conceal the shock it produced. That people from such divergent political tendencies were saying “I think the same way” only magnified the shockwaves. The single-paragraph text concerned the new “peace process” launched by the government with Abdullah Öcalan, leader of PKK read as follows: “We want peace and brotherhood. We reject the questioning of the Republic of Turkey and the outcomes of the Treaty of Lausanne, questioning of existing borders, the neoOttoman fantasies, illegitimate designations such as “Turkish Empire,”panislamism, or political structures and institutions based on ethnic and religious identities. We want peace and brotherhood, and also an independent and secular country, an egalitarian society, and a planned economy. We will not allow our country to tumble into the abyss.” How could such a brief text cause such an uproar? The answer was plain. Beyond the contradictions and inconsistencies of the new process-presented as “solving the Kurdish question” by the PKK, or “eliminating terror” by the government-the real intentions of the parties were being laid bare. With the exception of one nationalist party, every party in the parliament had in some form endorsed the process. The so-called “Turkish left,”just like always, had lined behind CHP (the social-democratic party) and DEM (the Kurdish nationalist party) in supporting the AKP and Öcalan’s so-called“democratization,” ambitions. At precisely this juncture, the TKP put forward a stance that was simple, brief, yet persuasive fora broad audience-by doing so, it positioned itself differently. Contrary to the government’s claims, we knew the process had been launched under the guidance of the United States and the United Kingdom, closely bound up with developmentsin Syria. Of course, there are real and sometimes deepening contradictions between Turkey and these powers. But since Turkish capitalism cannot break from NATO or detach itself economically from the Western alliance, those contradictions cannot ripen into open confrontation. The role assigned to Turkey by the US and the UK during the operation which was completed upon entry of jihadists to Damascus amounted to both incentive and blackmail. The Shara government (if it can even be called a government), was selected by the imperialist countries and Israel to enable intervention at will in Syria. Because the Turkish government failed to grasp this, it continued to back Shara unconditionally, seeking to secure Syria’s territorial integrity and unity through the authority of ajihadist faction in Damascus. Yet this was plainly impossible. Massacres against Alawites and Druze opened the door for Israeli intervention, while Syria’s Kurdish region, backed politically and militarily by the United States, was consolidating its de facto autonomy. The PKK leader’s message to Turkey-“if you come to terms with us, you will become a regional power; otherwise, Turkey will remain under threat” -was directly linked to this process. This line appealed to the AKP’s neo-Ottoman ambitions, while also carrying the threat that Kurds in Syria could

FAQs

What did the TKP declaration released on August 1, 2025 demand?

It called for peace and brotherhood while rejecting questioning the republic and the Treaty of Lausanne outcomes, including border changes and identity-based political structures. It also demanded an independent secular country, an egalitarian society, and a planned economy.

Why did a single-paragraph statement cause a major uproar?

The text was seen as exposing the real intentions behind the government- and PKK-linked “peace process.” It differed from the dominant parliamentary alignment and drew fire precisely because it was concise yet persuasive.

How does the article describe the origins and purpose of the “peace process”?

It argues the process was launched under US and UK guidance and is closely connected to developments in Syria. It frames the involvement as involving incentives and blackmail, tied to enabling intervention and shaping outcomes through chosen authorities.

Sep 10, 2026

Upload by Ophelia