Kurdish Issue   Legends and Definitions

By: Professor Mumtazer Turkone

Zaman Sep 11, 2005

Turkey will become a country insecure in its region, worn by internal conflicts, economically weakened and in a quagmire without being able to raise its head and look around.

This is the threat posed by a problem we are unable to define. This picture is not our fate; it is just a specter that can change with the decisions we make, the measures we implement and with what we do today.

There are many rumors but only one truth. What ever we may call it, Turkey has a serious problem of determining its future. For years, we limited this problem to a specific region and called it the "Southeastern Problem." As it claimed the lives of 30,000 people from 1984 to 1999, we changed its name to the "Terror Problem." Recently, our Prime Minister used the term "Kurdish Problem" during his meeting with intellectuals and turned the situation into a huge "Ethnic Problem", making it a new part of the line started by Ozal and continued by Demirel's definion of the "Kurdish reality."

Placing the title aside, we can all agree upon the multi-faceted, urgent and high-priority aspects of the problem. Primarily, this problem bears a determinative importance for the regional equilibrium and our foreign politics. All the stones in our region have been moved. After the conclusion of the US invasion in Iraq, a brand new picture of the Middle East will be presented to us and the "Greater Middle Eastern Project" will progress. This unnamable problem will constitute one of the main motive forces for these developments. The former Land Forces Commander recently claimed that Apo was handed over to officials in order to open the way for Kurdish leaders in Northern Iraq. If this claim is true the PKK will be liquidated with its resumption of terrorist activities. Turkey will thenceforth carry the projection of the "terror" problem to other dimensions. However, our EU journey has already modified our way of perceiving and handling this problem with the reform packages assigned to us. According to the way the events unfold, this problem will continue to determine our progress towards the EU.

The coordinates of the social peace…

If the PKK declaration of ceasefire until October 3 ends, terror, which escalated to a different dimension by new techniques, will add new victims to its list. The funeral ceremonies and tensions will shake the confidence of the society. Anger and spite will reciprocally escalate once again. If the propaganda terror targeting the civilian population, as it did in Kusadasi and Cesme, escalates, the terror will spread to all aspects of society and become a part of the daily life. The escalating terror will require an increase in security. The increase in security will mean the limitation of freedoms. As a result of the blood shed, democracy will become a heavily costing luxury and will be restrained. Even a possible suspension of democracy will be discussed. We will live in a country where those who hold arms will dominate, impose rules and hold power. Political identities, differences in party politics and polarizations will be determined according to the attitudes adopted in the face of the problem. The Economy will strive to cope with the costs augmented by the terror and the huge budgets allocated for the prevention of terror. The subtle equilibrium will most probably be lost.

In short, Turkey will become a country insecure in its region, worn by internal conflicts, economically weakened and in a quagmire without the capacity to raise its head and look around. This is the threat posed by a problem we are unable to define. This picture is not our fate; it is just a specter that can change with the decisions we make, the measures we implement, and with what we do today.

There is no magic stick that will solve this problem. To speak about a certain and conclusive solution is, in the short run, unrealistic as well. When regarding solutions in the short run, this problem can at most be reduced to or managed at bearable levels. For this to be achieved, a place far away from anger and hatred, free from those who exploit the problem and a place dominated by reason and common sense is required; and this space should be used to construct a strong and lasting consensus. What we need to construct is a place with social and political peace. Those people who believe there is another solution beside peace, either have ulterior motives or are blood thirsty. The establishment of this peaceful place has certain prerequisites. The first among them is to name the problem correctly. The remaining include, the reconsideration by each party of the hollow beliefs and prejudices which they use as ammunition in the fight and the reevaluation of the positions in which they take shelter and through which they express themselves.

What is the source of the problem? Let's look at that first!

We have to realize that topics repeated without much consideration and declared "sacred" are in fact just superstitions. We need to ponder and reconsider them. We have to name the problem correctly as a prerequisite for the solution. After that, we need a unifying, integrative and furthermore pacifist interpretation from the "National Unity and Integrity" myth. Then, finally we can send a strong blow that will disperse the black clouds above us with our explanations of harmonizing ethnic identities, sub and supra identities, enabling differences to live in peace and respecting history and the truths.

The name we assign to a problem should explain the cause of the problem. Otherwise, we will commit the irreparable logical flaw of taking the effects for the causes. The problem Turkey suffers from is an ethnic problem. Like all countries Turkey is inhabited by different ethnic groups. Among these there are the Kurds, who speak a different language and are demographically quite large. They complain about their circumstances, about their situation in the face of the majority and the state. They don't just say it, but they organize themselves into political parties and demand "rights," sometimes by transgressing the limits of the current laws. Some people use the circumstances under which the ethnic group live as an excuse and regard liberty, autonomy, federation and the establishment of an independent state as a right and begin riots and terror activities. However, if we limit the problem we are confronted with to just “terror” and limit ourselves to struggling with that, then we will never reach to the bottom of where there terror sprouts. The question we have to ask in order to define it is this:

"If there was no ethnic problem, could terror have existed?" If we answer this question without making any demagogy, there is only one solution: The name of the problem in Turkey is the "Kurdish Problem".

I am aware that those, who refrain from the definition "Kurdish Problem", are afraid of what they will see once they enter through the door of that definition. This door opens to a world of "cultural rights", primarily the language. But, this fear cannot prevent the result. As a matter of fact, Turkey has already opened this door. Solving these problems has been the main issue in the reform packages by the EU since 1999. The Accession Partnership Document that will be revised in October includes an expression ascribing a minority status to Kurds. You cannot resist recent developments that drag the entire world and Turkey into various directions by grounding your justifications only on the Lausanne Treaty. Even if you are determined you cannot resist. The International conventions that Turkey signed and the changes it is made through the EU process render the minority articles in the Lausanne Treaty as too nostalgic for our state order. There no longer exists a world where all we need to do is recognize the minority non-Muslims as required by the Lausanne Treaty. We should understand the current situation is the result of our historically last role model France’s, rejection of minorities within its boundaries. You do not need to recognize the minorities individually to recognize their rights. Minority rights are arranged as the rights of individuals belonging to a minority (this is the world's solution) and they are regarded as priority rights among basic human rights.

Recognizing the "Kurdish Problem" means ascribing Kurds the rights that are given to minorities throughout the world. These rights include, cultural rights such as expressing one's own identity, learning, teaching and speaking his/her native language freely, and using media instruments. They also include political rights, such as the freedom of expression and the freedom to form organizations. A great deal of these include rights ascribed to a "linguistic minority". The Council of Europe's “European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML)" and the "Protection of National Minorities (FCNM)" that Turkey is also expected to approve arrange these rights in detail. These rights expect their details have already been recognized through the EU reforms. Moreover, the process of establishing a procedure for individuals to apply themselves to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the indirect adjustment of our judicial system to these rights continue. So, what is the problem then? Since there is no material ground for fear of "If we ascribe those rights to Kurds, then they will want territorial independence", in other words if the path of these rights have been opened, why do they insist on naming the issue only as a "terror problem"? Why is not at least the "Kurdish Problem" accepted with the "terror problem"?

There are two reasons that come to mind: The first is ignorance and foolishness overshadowed by anger and hatred. Those, who are not wise enough to leave habits carried through myths, resist at archaic positions. Yet, some other people try to fool eyes by carrying firewood to a hell created by habits. The second reason that comes to mind is that there must be a plan of those that benefit from “terror.” In a context where only weapons speak, everyone except those who carry weapons naturally remain silent. What definition can serve for the following article of our Constitution? "The Turkish state is an inseparable unity with its country and nation." We should give an answer to this question by leaving behind habits and myths and by making a new contemporary interpretation of the principle of "National unity and integrity."

September 1, 2005

Professor Turkone is a faculty member at Gazi University