The Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C) and the Kurdistan People’s Congress (Kongra-Gel or KGK) have been two prominent actors in the landscape of Turkish domestic terrorism, each with its distinct ideologies, tactics, and objectives.
DHKP/C, born out of factional infighting in 1994, holds a Marxist-Leninist stance, vehemently opposing US and NATO presence in Turkey alongside the Turkish establishment. The group’s history is marked by sporadic attacks targeting US interests, with a notable incident being the 2013 suicide bombing at the US Embassy in Ankara. DHKP/C’s primary goals encompass overthrowing the Turkish state, expelling US and NATO forces, and abolishing what they deem as oppressive prison conditions in Turkey. Despite crackdowns, DHKP/C has shown resilience, resuming attacks on Turkish authorities in 2012 and continuing its operations, including hostage-taking and suicide bombings.
On the other hand, KGK, formerly known as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), has been engaged in a protracted conflict with the Turkish state since 1984. The group, primarily consisting of Turkish Kurds, advocates for Kurdish separatism, operating mainly in southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq. KGK’s violent campaign, including terrorist activities, has resulted in tens of thousands of casualties. The group’s imprisoned leader, Abdullah Ocalan, initiated peace negotiations with the Turkish government in 2012, leading to a ceasefire that endured despite sporadic clashes. However, tensions persisted, aggravated by disputes over legal and constitutional guarantees, ultimately culminating in renewed violence in 2015.
Response of the Turkish government to these groups has been multifaceted, involving both military operations and attempts at negotiation and peacebuilding. However, the complex socio-political dynamics in Turkey, including issues of Kurdish rights and regional instability, continue to fuel the conflict.
As Turkey grapples with the challenge of domestic terrorism, finding a sustainable solution remains elusive, necessitating a nuanced approach that addresses both security concerns and underlying grievances.
