Leyla Zana Speech at Fourth International Conference in
EU
3 December 2007
Brussels
Esteemed Friends, dear participants,
Firstly, I would like to thank everyone in the organising bodies for their
contributions to this conference. As it is known, internal peace in Turkey is
the greatest guarantee for peace in Europe, the Middle East and the world. I
would like to reiterate that I find such events, where the Kurdish issue is
analysed extensively, and in which all parties’ different components can
participate with original views and proposals, valuable.
My last visit to the European Parliament was on the occasion of the Sakharov
Prize award ceremony. On that day, I had started my speech in the brother
language Turkish and had continued in Kurdish where I wanted to once again
underscore the brotherhood of peoples, languages and cultures. Today I want to
speak to you in Kurdish only. This time, it is not because I do not want to
emphasise brotherhood among peoples, but because I want to draw your attention
once more to efforts of resurrecting the fear of mother tongue. In fact, I find
it a matter of embarrassment for Turkey that people are still being tried in
courts for speaking in their mother tongue. I believe that this emphasis I am
making on the Kurdish language at a time when a democratic and civil
constitution is under debate will be evaluated by you not as an important detail
but as a primary request.
During the intervening time period many conferences were held both within the
European Parliament and also in Turkey on the issues of EU, Turkey and the
Kurds. As these meetings on the themes of peace and solutions were held, various
and original initiatives by the intellectuals were undertaken, signature
campaigns were launched and press declarations were made, all these turned into
a common agenda of all those whose hearts were beating for an honourable, just
and lasting peace with the aim of putting an end to deaths. However, sufficient
honesty and sincerity could not be demonstrated for ending deaths.
The lock is there, the key is known but the door just won’t open. It is high
time the door is opened. The important thing is to place the key in the lock
properly. Everything hinges on an issue which I reminded you of just recently
with insistence and emphasis but something that I have frankly got tired of
reminding everyone...The key issue has to do with how the issue is defined, the
approach and outlook to the issue. The issue does not stem from any problem of
public order, security, hunger or socio-economic backwardness. Everything you
try to strip of its identity is doomed to become more painful and complex as
examples demonstrate in other countries. Unless we are able to debate the very
name of the issue correctly, the multifaceted crisis of identity and social
crisis will drown us all in an ocean of stalemates. If the Kurdish issue were
solely an issue of poverty and security, wouldn’t the methods that have been
tried for over half a century been not only decisive but would also have lead to
results? Haven’t all methods including beatings, detentions, torture,
executions, forced migrations, sending to forced exile, extra judicial killings,
village evacuations, village guards, release based on confessions, pardon based
on apology been tried? These are indeed only those methods that are known and
explained in a loud and clear manner by the highest authorities. What about
methods that not known or disclosed? I believe my memory which is writhing and
reeling in pain will not allow me to remember and recount all of the ones that
have been tried.
Despite all these denials, this treatment with contempt, debasement and even
being expelled from their land, Kurds did not get cross. They were heartbroken
but believed it was a virtue not to complain about it. They were beaten but
instead of taking revenge by beating back they insisted on a country where all
existing differences would survive. They did not hold one blood more supreme
than the other, one language superior to the other, one colour better than the
other. They were not on the side of those who thrived on conflict and bloodshed
between peoples. On the contrary, when the ringleaders were yelling and shouting
to arouse, they maintained their modesty by remaining silent. They yearned and
are still yearning for a policy of sensitivity and stability where common values
are symbolised in an honourable, just and lasting solution. Destruction, denial
must not be the only way.
Then, it is not possible to change the issue by taking its causes and effects
separately and independently from each other. Instead of dividing, pulling into
pieces or scattering it, we should set off primarily by defining it correctly.
We should reach an agreement that we cannot solve the problem through clichés, a
policy of condemnation and damnation, by closing political parties, by
increasing the number of investigations and arrests, by preventing civil
politics, by raising the bar even higher on bans and prohibitions and more
importantly, by regarding deaths of people as mere statistical data. Otherwise
our losses will not decrease but will unfortunately increase. In fact, even the
developments experienced in the specific context of Kurds in Turkey and legal
politics are enough to demonstrate this.
Along this direction, the number of our duties and responsibilities are on the
increase. In addition to Kurds, the responsibility of the European Union and the
Turkish Government cannot be underestimated. But the unison of discourse between
the EU and the Turkish government spokespersons aggravate the issue rather than
alleviating it. On the contrary, what is expected is to remind Turkey of its
responsibilities concerning the Kurdish issue and ensuring that this should not
remain at the level of a reminder alone. Undoubtedly, the solution to the
Kurdish issue should be specific to Turkey. But during the process of finding a
solution not everything should be expected of Turkey and the existing inner
dynamics in Turkey. The aim should not be putting pressure but creating
synergies by offering a contribution. Contribution to Turkey could not be
through the unison created in discourse. It should be known that an “EU Member
Turkey”, which will have solved the Kurdish issue in a manner that is in
congruence with contemporary civilisations and the new world order will not only
remain as a rising star but it will also be transformed into a facilitating
force in the realisation of world peace.
What are these responsibilities then? Despite all these adverse developments, I
believe the historic opportunity that was seized in 1999 for a democratic and
peaceful solution to the Kurdish issue is still there. The world should stop
avoiding the recognition of political, social and cultural democratic rights of
Kurds whose population is over 40 million. Instead of a definition of
citizenship which defines everyone as Turkish, the existing phobia against
placing under legal protection all natural rights emanating from peoples’
original characteristics. Instead of focusing on denigrating concepts such as
“pardon based on apology”, amnesty, pardon or the like, we should be speaking
about quality and comprehensive projects with content. Enabling political
detainees, intellectuals, writers and politicians who have been relegated to
forced or voluntary exile to participate in the political life should be
regarded as a step to facilitate a solution. Radical reforms in Turkey’s
political and administrative structure will accelerate and strengthen the
process of democratisation. For ways to be developed in finding solutions to
problems, enhancement of local administrations will ease the process.
Values that Kurds as a people do not hesitate to emphasise out loud or even
regard as untouchable even if the price they have to pay is heavy should never
be ignored. This is because the primary duty of politicians and those who give
direction to politics is not merely to listen to the values and requests of the
people. Being able to be the tongue and voice of the people requires that the
untouchable values of the people are expressed clearly and honestly. In this
process which is evolving towards a solution, the Kurdish people find the role
of Mr Ocalan extremely important and effective within the framework of social
peace and the togetherness of peoples. In fact, this is not expressed by Kurds
alone. Prominent writers in Turkey draw attention to the fact that “the first
radical step in seeking a solution would be a comprehensive agreement with
Ocalan”.
It is time we started talking about our problems by doing away with our taboos.
Regarding that the sensitivities of people are noteworthy makes a lasting peace
possible. What is expected of the world is to respect this will and exclude it
from bargaining issues in international relationships. Unless the issue is
approached from a human perspective and from a perspective of conscience, it
will continue to be a potential risk threatening regional and world peace. It is
for this reason that the policy of “good Kurds-bad Kurds” that has been tried
for some time has gone bankrupt. What befits a modern country is to hand over a
tradition of tolerance that will strengthen diplomatic, cultural, economic and
social relations to the future rather than escalating tensions across borders
and countries.
Dear friends,
The ties of citizenship are not only established through laws. Those who are
considered as ‘so called’ citizens, but who are in fact real citizens in
essence, despite the fact that they are tied to their through their hearts, may
really become ‘so called’ citizens tomorrow. In a world where borders have lost
their meaning, real division and separation is that which happens in the hearts
and minds. Bringing the heart and mind together necessitates patience,
fortitude, stamina, experience and maturity. I believe we have gone over the
threshold of endurance. Just as we cannot build tomorrow by nurturing the pains
of yesterday, it is not possible to find a solution by multiplying the pains of
today either.
Just as Emin Maalouf has said, “My identity is what makes me unique and unlike
any other. Killing a person’s identity is a murder that is graver than killing
him.” Every identity that is killed is in fact a loss for humanity. We should
therefore capture the pluralism that will nurture those differences. It should
be known that every identity that is murdered is our own murder regardless of
what our language, religion or identity might be.
Believing that you will approach the problem with sensitivity I extend my love
to you...
