1. The Imperialist system is not limited to the USA alone. Nor is it a nebulous enemy to blame at will. Imperialism is the name for the world system dominated by international monopolies. In this system, capitalist countries compete with each other to seize a larger share of the world’s wealth and to conquer new areas of investment and exploitation. Leading transfer of resources from the weaker ones to the strongest, this international conflict is characterized by wars, occupations, annexations, ethnic conflicts, coups, mass migrations and massacres and does not eliminate the competition among different groups of large capital within each capitalist country. In many countries, different groups of capital have different foreign policy preferences. Governments in all capitalist countries try to reconcile these contradictions and generally seek to designate a “national strategy” by prioritizing the interest of the strongest ones usually. However, as this strategy serves the interests of a very small minority of a society in practice, it is not “national” or, to use the terms of the ruling party (AKP), “domestic and national”.
2. It is a great mistake to categorize the countries that dominate today’s world as simply good or bad, just or unjust as the social system in these countries are fundamentally built on immorality, on injustice, and depends on the exploitation of the working masses. In this sense, domestic and foreign policy complement each other; a government that is wrong in domestic policy does not become right in foreign policy. It is a historical falsehood aimed at lulling the broad masses into complacency. This is why we emphasize the difference between bourgeois nationalism and working-class patriotism which means to rid the country we live in from immorality, injustice and unfairness. And only with such a moral stance can one stand against foreign enemies and imperialism.
3. For quite a long time, we have been witnessing an intensification of the struggle between the United States-led bloc and China, which threatens U.S. hegemony through its rapid economic growth. The significance of this struggle should be acknowledged in the unrest currently unfolding in many parts of the world, including our region. Recently, the U.S. administration has intensified its efforts to distance Russia from China, prepare its European allies for war, seize control of trade routes, renew the alliance system in the Middle East, and establish regional production hubs to counterbalance China’s economic dominance.
4. We are seeing consistent developments throughout the Middle East: the weakening of the Palestinian resistance by Israel, taking advantage of almost all countries either openly supporting it or turning a blind eye on its actions, the steps taken to ensure that regional countries join the Abraham Accords, which means recognising Israel’s expansionist goals, the fall of the Assad government in Syria, which had resisted this process, and its replacement by the Jihadist HTS, which knows that it owes its power to the U.S. and U.K., and the increase in the pressure on Iran. All these developments are in line with the wishes of the U.S. and U.K., who are attempting to soften the competition among Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Israel and to shift the balance against Iran. It should also be noted that Azerbaijan, a key player in the region’s current or planned energy projects and the one taking the role of mediator between Turkey and Israel, has had a significant place in this process.
5. A new era has begun in the Middle East where balances, borders and alliances will be changing. It should not be assumed that this will be limited to the imperialists’ “division- fragmentation” strategy. In fact, dividing countries into smaller units is not the goal but a tool. Imperialism is trying to divide countries for easier exploitation, plunder and higher profits. In this context, the aim is to transform this region, which has been exhausted by bloody wars for many years, into a new center of “economic vitality” with strategically important trade and energy routes on the one hand, and a cheap and docile labour force on the other. The lifting of sanctions on Syria and the instruction given to al- Sharaa to “get along well with Israel” are connected to this aim.
6. The prerequisite for transforming a vast region starting from India and including the Middle East, Libya and African countries such as Sudan into a new center of “economic vitality” is the establishment of a strong alliance including Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Azerbaijan. Without such a comprehensive move, it seems difficult to economically push back China. The “India-Middle East-Europe Corridor”, which was put forward by U.S. imperialism about two years ago as an alternative to China’s “Belt and Road” project, was a notable expression of pursuit in this direction. The fact that taking control of trade and energy routes is not sufficient for the U.S. and that an alternative production hub must also be created has become more apparent with the tariff agenda escalated by the Trump administration within the scope of the trade war with China. It can be said that the aim is to create a new “center of labour exploitation” that will reduce the dependence of U.S. and European markets on China, while creating new market opportunities.
Each country in the broader Middle East region—including those rich in oil—offers immense potential for rapid development rooted in industrial production, thereby presenting expanded opportunities for capitalist exploitation. Countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq clearly stand out for their exploitable cheap labour potential. Capital in Turkey, with its relatively developed production infrastructure and accumulated experience, is well positioned to incorporate these countries into a more advanced framework of integration. Meanwhile, Israel and Saudi Arabia contribute through the export of technology and capital. The growth in exploitation capacity—most notably in Turkey, but also in Egypt and Jordan—over the past decade, particularly as a result of migration triggered by the Syrian War, has significantly bolstered the profits of international monopolies, especially those based in the European Union. The interventions and pressures exerted by imperialist powers are based on their acute awareness of the vast opportunities such a large, interconnected region of exploitation represents.
7. The most recent “resolution process” in the Kurdish issue —what the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) refers to as capitalist peace—aligns closely with this context. The AKP government was drawn into this process under pressure from the United States and the United Kingdom. As Bahçeli (leader of the Nationalist Movement Party) described it as an “external threat” and PKK leaders repeatedly stated “we have other options,” Israel demonstrated its capacity to play a more decisive role in Syria, even to the extent of influencing the Sharaa administration and establishing zones under its control or patronage. Turkey was compelled to serve as the ground-level enforcer of an operation that ultimately brought HTS to power in Syria, while also accepting the presence and political reality of the SDF—despite the ongoing tensions and negotiations. The AKP government was in no position to resist this imposition, due both to economic fragility and to corruption scandals that had long since taken on an international dimension. Moreover, it should not be overlooked that the government pledged itself to NATO and European powers as a “reliable partner” in future military conflicts—thus once again aligning with the strategic direction of the United States, while also perceiving this alignment as a significant opportunity.
8. In this context, the “resolution process,” which had long awaited a favourable international conjuncture, returned to the agenda in a more comprehensive and decisive form. The strategy of “continuing with Erdoğan”—deemed acceptable by the international system due to the concessions he had made—needed to be reinforced through adjustments to Turkey’s domestic political landscape. For this strategy to succeed, it became essential to dismantle the electoral alliance formed in the last elections. Ensuring that the DEM Party was distanced from the CHP, and that it would not obstruct—if not outright support—Erdoğan’s re-election for another term, was seen as a key objective. Beyond that, facilitating the AKP’s push for a new Constitution that would further consolidate its power and grant it renewed legitimacy added urgency to the process. As a result, the long-standing plan developed by Öcalan and state officials was revived, revised, and swiftly put into motion.
9. This resolution process carries a positive aspect in any case, insofar as it ends the armed conflict. The conclusion of a war that has turned working people against one another, and the transformation of the idea of fraternity into an “official” thesis, can—when approached through an independent and revolutionary strategy—foster a climate that facilitates leading this country toward a brighter future.
10. Yet the international and regional context of the process, which we have broadly outlined here, should sufficiently explain the price of this apparent progress. The “Kurdish issue” has been deliberately rendered unsolvable by the system, with imperialist powers actively maintaining the deadlock through systematic interventions. Over the past half-century, the Kurdish nationalist movement has undergone significant ideological shifts, yet despite its broad social base, it has been confronted with a “solution” that bears little relation to the original demands it put forward when it began its struggle. The United Kingdom and the United States concluded that the time had come for this “question” to change form. The AKP government, cornered and weakened, tried to turn this desperation into an opportunity. Meanwhile, the organisation, recognising the impossibility of moving beyond the Öcalan cult it had cultivated, began seeking ways to generate new opportunities from the process. Ultimately, who wins or loses will be determined by time, by the power struggles between these actors, and by the interventions of other forces in Turkey and the broader region.
11. Within this framework, it is inevitable that the resolution process will be interpreted in different ways. The presence of differing tendencies within both the AKP and the state apparatus is evident—even a glance at the statements of Erdoğan and Bahçeli makes this clear. A similar situation is also known to exist within the PKK front. While it is entirely natural for such divergences to emerge, over time they may either be reconciled or escalate into deeper internal tensions. From our perspective, what matters is not these internal differences themselves, but the dominant ideological and class characteristics shaping the process.
12. As the actors of the resolution process have long articulated, the foundation of Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood has been constructed on a religious basis. There is no hesitation in defining this foundation as Sunni Islamism, which aligns closely with the neo-Ottomanist approach. The questioning of the founding principles of the Republic of Turkey, the Treaty of Lausanne, and the current national borders is entirely consistent with this ideological framework—and regardless of official statements to the contrary, such outcomes are ultimately inevitable.
13. With the new opportunities to be created in Iraq and Syria, Kurdish capital—an important component of the Turkish bourgeoisie—will enter a new phase of integration into the existing class-based system. What is presented as Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood will in reality take the form of a fraternity between capital interests. For the Kurdish poor, this process will bring nothing but continued exploitation and poverty.
14. The capitalist peace or brotherhood is always inherently fragile. Emerging regional dynamics could quickly transform this internal capital consensus in Turkey into a source of tension or conflict. Moreover, should talks with Iran collapse, the current “Pax Capitalica” fostered by the resolution process may be forced to pay a price as part of the international system’s broader operation against Iran.
15. In any case, Turkey stands at a historic crossroads. At this turning point, the reconstruction of the republican legacy in Turkey is an absolute necessity. Whether some Republicans accept it or not, a process of debate and reassessment is inevitable. At a time when the founding dynamics of the Republic are being questioned and those who seek a final reckoning with the Republic are declaring that “now is the time,” it is our duty to identify the source of the catastrophe that has befallen this country and the deep crises we are experiencing, and to explain it to our people.
16. The Republic of Turkey was founded as a revolutionary project, following a revolutionary struggle. We will never allow the events of the subsequent years to obscure this truth. The struggle against imperialist occupation and the monarchy, and the fact that this struggle culminated in the establishment of the Republic and a series of progressive reforms, constitute the source of the historical legitimacy of the movement led by Mustafa Kemal. A realistic assessment of that period reveals that there were serious obstacles to the implementation of a more progressive political project in our region at the time. This was also true for the Kurdish people, who lived under the domination of tribal leaders, large landowners, and religious sects. In this context, regardless of how much effort is made, any claim that reactionary figures such as Sheikh Said have been historically mistreated does not serve the interests of the Kurdish people, but only today’s neo-Ottomanist ambitions.
17. It is a well-known fact that during the War of Independence, a significant portion of the Anatolian population was not entirely supportive of the struggle against occupation. War fatigue, poverty, fatalism, and the Ottoman Palace propaganda led many to accept the status quo. However, it is essential to distinguish between the passive acceptance among poor peasants and the active collaboration of the landowning elite and local notables. This distinction also applies to those who joined the War of Independence. Those who risked their lives to join the War of Independence out of poverty had different expectations from those who viewed it as an investment opportunity and took part with their financial means. After the war ended, property-owning classes enriched themselves—some by seizing the assets and businesses of non-Muslims who had left Anatolia, others by expanding their own estates—while the condition of the poor peasantry remained largely unchanged. Therefore, the claim that class contradictions of the Ottoman era were resolved or that social injustice diminished after 1923 is unfounded. The roots of the enormous inequalities experienced by the people under Turkish capitalism today, as well as the origins of certain major business families, can be traced back to this period. This class-based and historical reality does not diminish the revolutionary value of the War of Independence or the founding of the Republic. The fact that the conditions—both subjective and objective—necessary to alter that reality had not yet matured at the time does not invalidate the legitimacy or relevance of today’s workers, who are the descendants of Anatolian peasants who risked their lives for the War of Independence, standing up against the monopolies to claim their rights as the very class that founded and liberated this country.
18. Whether it stems from the argument that the Kurds were denied their rights or from the claim that Mustafa Kemal and his comrades settled for Anatolia out of cowardice, the reopening of debates on the Treaty of Lausanne and, more broadly, on Turkey’s borders will have devastating consequences for everyone living in this region today. Alongside efforts to revive the Treaty of Sèvres, narratives that seek to justify historically the expansion of Turkey’s borders—whether in one direction or another—have begun to lay the groundwork for bloody confrontations across the Balkans, the Aegean, the Caucasus, and the Syria-Iraq-Iran axis. Ethnic-based claims for historical legitimacy can bring no peace to any nation, since there is no clear point at which to begin or end the timeline.
19. After declaring that they would not shy away from taking responsibility for fostering a healthy debate within the republican tradition, the communists placed great importance on taking the initiative to establish platforms such as the People’s Representatives Assembly of Turkey (THTM), the creation of affiliated local assemblies, and the convening of a Congress of Republicans. The Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) argued that a new political awakening could only take root by relying on the working classes and by fundamentally questioning the foundations of capitalism, proceeding with the foresight that the country was approaching a critical crossroads. Now, that crossroads has been reached. It is imperative to confront the “Pax Capitalica” with the solidarity of Turkish and Kurdish workers, and to roll up our sleeves to ensure that politically engaged Kurdish citizens—as well as politicians and intellectuals unwilling to accept the basis of the ongoing process—become active participants in a new republican breakthrough.
20. To achieve this, we must clearly identify whom we are opposing. Our struggle is not against an abstract, depoliticized imperialism, but against imperialism as an international system dominated by multinational monopolies. Institutions like NATO were created and structured to serve the interests of these monopolies. In Turkey, exploitative monopolies hold power; big capital, in all its forms, is responsible for the AKP government and the erosion of the values established since the founding of the Republic. Monopolies and religious sects are driving the country, hand in hand, toward the edge of an abyss. There is no such thing as “good capitalism.” We must explain to the working people that without pursuing a truly better and radical liberation, we cannot escape from conditions that will only worsen.
21. One of the greatest dangers in this process is the possibility that the antagonistic and polarizing language long imposed on society by past governments and the AKP in relation to the Kurdish issue may now be adopted by segments of the republican opposition seeking to challenge the AKP. This discourse has gripped the country and society for years, ultimately paving the way for the current capital-led resolution process steered by imperialist interests. Abandoned overnight by the AKP and its loyal media, this discourse is crude and regressive. What the republican legacy in Turkey needs is not primitivism, but courage and ideological consistency.
22. In the period ahead, the Communist Party of Turkey will race against time to advance the unified struggle of the working people—the principal force behind a resurgence that can ensure Turkey’s unity, fraternity, independence, and the prosperity and equality of its people. This struggle must be completely closed off to identity-based politics, nationalist alignments, and liberal deceit. This struggle, which must be completely closed off to identity politics, nationalist stances, and liberal deceptions, is the only way to free millions of our citizens—who are currently forced to question and reconsider their Turkishness or Kurdishness—from despair by putting forward a clear and transparent vision of Turkey.
23. Another key issue is to free the social segments opposed to the AKP from a politics focused solely on İmamoğlu, the prisoned CHP Mayor of the İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality. The operation targeting İmamoğlu is political—it is an assault on the right to vote and be elected. This attack must be opposed, yet the opposition must not fall into the trap set by the government around İmamoğlu. In the İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality, İmamoğlu inherited a system built by the AKP, continued to work with almost the same companies, and simultaneously attempted to align this system with his own political goals. This system—used as a source of profit and rent by large holdings and various religious sect networks, large and small—has nothing worth defending. Through this political operation, the AKP aims to polarize opposition circles around İmamoğlu, only to later expose and even discard the dispensable parts of a system it knows all too well. In doing so, İmamoğlu would be sidelined, and a broad segment of society would be left in despair alongside the hero in whom they had placed their hopes.
24. It is well known that the AKP seeks to tie the “resolution process” to the drafting of a new constitution. Throughout its 23 years in power, Erdoğan and his team have made it abundantly clear what kind of Turkey they envision and what they have to offer society and the people. Regardless of its content, any new constitution would ultimately serve the AKP’s blueprint for Turkey. In any case, it has been repeatedly demonstrated over the years that the existing Constitution has placed no real constraints on AKP rule. Thus, the inclusion of a few superficial articles to mislead the public will not alter the core purpose of a new draft. We have no need for yet another counter-revolutionary constitution built atop the one imposed by the fascist regime of September 12; no need for a constitution that would institutionalize and legitimize AKP’s Turkey. The next constitution of Turkey must be revolutionary, social, egalitarian, anti-imperialist, and secular in character. It must outlaw exploitation, militarism, and racism, and guarantee all citizens free access to basic needs such as education, healthcare, housing, water, and heating. In this respect, the Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) maintains its clear and unwavering stance on the issue of a new constitution.
25. Once again, the idea that the government has planned everything in advance and has been flawlessly executing a long-prepared strategy is gaining widespread acceptance. As we have always said, the main reason why large segments of society fluctuate between hope and despair is the style of politics imposed on the people by the bourgeois opposition in Turkey. Because this style—based on individuals and easy salvation recipes—replaces a consistent, principled, and program-based struggle, the hopes of millions who oppose the AKP government can quickly turn into deep despair. After the protests centered in Saraçhane, a large segment of the population that believed the days of the AKP government were numbered is currently demoralized due to the process between the AKP and DEM, spreading the myth that the AKP can never be defeated. TKP, which constantly emphasizes that the system itself must be questioned to effectively oppose the AKP and reminds that the issue is not just the “Palace regime,” keeps itself and its circle away from this spiral of hope and despair. The reason is simple: TKP has never placed its hopes in TÜSİAD, in European countries, in the United States, in “good” religious sects, or in former AKP politicians.
26. It is not true that the AKP gets everything it wants or governs the country entirely on its own terms. As we have been stating for months, Turkey is going through a crisis of governance, and a range of actors are making moves to resolve this crisis in line with their own interests. The new resolution process is part of an attempt to overcome the governance crisis through a capital consensus. Since 2023, Turkey’s relations with the United States and the United Kingdom have shown signs of improvement. In recent months, this trajectory has intensified and expanded to include Israel, evolving into a more comprehensive and accelerated engagement. While it is clear that the support AKP is receiving from the imperialist powers is aimed at helping it overcome its internal disintegration—what we have described as a process of unraveling—the full scope of this support has yet to be revealed. More critically, it remains unknown what the AKP has pledged in return for this assistance. What is certain, however, is that the “Pax Capitalica” or “consensus” being tested domestically is mirrored internationally by Turkey’s participation in a new regional system—politically, economically, and militarily—alongside the United States, Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. This decision marks Turkey’s integration into what may be called a U.S.-led “peace initiative” in the region. Yet it must be understood that such “peace” merely suppresses one crisis while paving the way for another. A “perfect and harmonious” regional alliance under U.S. leadership means new wars abroad, and domestically, no one should expect stability from a system dominated by the monopolies and religious sects.
27. The Communist Party of Turkey (TKP) insists: there is no reason for despair. What we are confronting is a social system that produces poverty, unemployment, inequality, injustice, and oppression—one that makes life increasingly unbearable in every sphere. This system cannot be reformed. Every initiative that aims to improve or fix it only wastes precious time for our country and our people. Rather than exhausting ourselves trying to repair an irreparable system, we must build a new one—one that is truly just and humane. The Republic of Turkey is our country. Instead of questioning its foundation or borders, we must identify the true source of the problems we face, eliminate that source, and lead our beloved homeland towards the light. We reject false “resolutions” that only promise new conflicts and crises. Instead of false “solutions” that breed new conflicts and crises, we are on the path toward a profound and historic transformation—one where those who trust their reason, conscience, ethics, and labor, and who believe in their country, their people, and humanity, come together to unite their strength.
“Terror-Free Turkey” — a powerful slogan. But, how about “Turkey Free from Exploitation”?
This is the goal we will achieve—together.”
Communist Party of Turkey
Central Committee
