The shadow of violence cast on the Resolution Process after the October 6 – 8 incidents is still continuing by being intensified in Cizre. Despite the relieving statements from all the sides, which have the potential to have a positive or negative effect on the clash in Cizre, the tension is gradually rising.

Why won’t the incidents in this tiny district come to an end, even when all the related actors propounded their desire to end the tension with emphatic statements?

The first possibility that pops up in our minds is: provocation. Since the recent history subjected us to experience enough provocations, we cannot shrug off this possibility that easily. However, when the tininess of the district, the development and continuity of the incidents are taken into consideration, it is necessary to see that the matter has a direction that exceeds provocation.

The provocative accusations on the sides also act as a function that prorogues their responsibilities.  By using the magic word, without being exposed to political or communal pressure, they attain the chance to actualize the strategy they’ve foreseen.

Despite the organization being the essential responsible for the incidents in Cizre, it’s understood that HÜDA-PAR also has a share in the uprising and on-going incidents.  With the resistance shown against the organization in Cizre, HÜDA-PAR is planning to put the weapons into circulation once again over self-defense, to permute political legitimacy by resisting against the organization and to turn into an alternative address for the community and governments against the hegemony formed in the region by PKK.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that since the beginning, the responsibility belonged to the organization. Developments like the mobilization of paramilitary factor for the purpose of establishing a “parallel system” and the digging of dykes are showing us that the organization was mobilized in the axis of a certain strategy.

By being inspired by the Arab Spring on 2012, the PKK adopted the “revolutionist civil war” concept and aimed to form a “recovered region” by capturing the administration of the region with acts like “zone defense”. This fantastic concept, which was based on establishing field dominance on the Şemdinli-Yüksekova line, caused tragic results.

The PKK managed to actualize this concept, which they failed to do so in Turkey, at “Rojava” by taking advantage of the authority gap in Syria. With Assad’s consent and support, PYD succeeded in assimilating different political actors and structures by mobilizing every kind of violence and oppression, including assassinations, and thus gained a de facto domination.

The incidents in Cizre are reflecting the PKK’s failed attempts in 2012, the Rojava experience and their effort to re-actualize it via Resolution Process. Within this frame, the developments in Cizre are helping us to see the meaning attributed to the Resolution Process by the organization and their visualization of establishing a political system.

The essential perpetrator of the incidents in Cizre, YDG-H, is a structuring of the Resolution Process. The function of this paramilitary organization, which is trying to be concealed up by hiding behind sympathetic words like “Hurricane Youth”, is to ensure the field domination of the organization and help them assimilate alternative segments. When the situation is like this, there is no meaning in accusing others, spouting threats or hiding behind the provocations, before explaining the intention behind establishing this structure, why it’s still not repealed or why the dykes had been dug.

As a result, the incidents in Cizre had subjected the organization’s attitude during the Resolution Process to a sincerity test. The Cizre incidents are forcing us to answer the following question: Is the Resolution Process a strategic decision for the organization or an instrumental-tactical decision?

The Resolution Process is advancing on an axis that will ensure disarmament. However, independent from the outcome of the Resolution Process that is advancing on a political platform, all the components of the organization, from its leaders to its political extensions, are required to give a persuasive answer to this question and to ensure the consistency between the expression they’ve created with their answer and the instruments they’ve used.