Category Archives: Turkey

Turkey’s peace initiative – ensuring that once rebels drop weapons, they are not picked up again

Leave a reply

The turn of the year has created a unique environment and momentum in Turkey for solving the age-old Kurdish question, better than any time in the history of the Turkish republic, culminating in Abdullah Ocalan’s Newroz ceasefire declaration and an on-going peace process.

While the current progress and general rhetoric is certainly positive, many obstacles lie head and the initiative can be easily derailed.

It has taken bold steps from both sides to get this far and settling a three decade armed struggle cannot be achieved without courageous steps, determination and real compromise and desire. While many in Turkey continue to believe there is no Kurdish question and what remains to be resolved is a “terrorist” problem, true resolution and reconciliation will only come with the acknowledgement that the Kurdish question and the PKK problem are one and the same.

The details of peace talks and agreements, other than through leaked press reports, have been generally concealed. The government needs to be clear and transparent in the negotiations and with practical steps it is willing to take.

These steps must mean wholesale gestures to the Kurds through parliamentary measures and not via a piecemeal carrot and stick approach.

The current debate about the withdrawal of PKK rebels within Turkey highlights the current sensitivity that continues to plague Turkey. The AKP government has refused demands to enshrine the disarmament and withdrawal of PKK rebels into legislation. It remains conscious of nationalist reservations or giving the PKK nemesis credibility or acclaim through any “public” withdrawal.

In the grander scheme of things, dropping of guns will not be an issue and it is likely that in Ocalan’s latest letter to be announced that he will push the rebels to disarm before withdrawing. It is ensuring that these guns are not picked up gain that is the issue.

If Turkish government concessions fail to materialise or appease the greater portion of Kurdish society, the process can easily unravel. Furthermore, without long-term peace and democratic measures, reflected in a constitution that deliver true rights for the Kurds and a level of regional autonomy enveloped with economy growth and investment in the south east, another armed group may simply fly the flag.

With new democratic channels, a constitution that protects Kurdish identity and new jobs, much needed public services and an improved standard of living, a new natural political climate can take hold in the Kurdish regions of Turkey.

Indeed the onset of a new Turkey is a win-win for Turks and Kurds, but for the PKK it has to realise that an end of violence is also win-win for all parts of Kurdistan. The new Kurdistan Region of Syria was hampered by its association with the PKK and a harsh line of Turkey. Peace in Turkey will also result in constructive steps by Ankara with Qamishli.

The anti-Assad stance of the Turkish government led to a somewhat predictable reinvigoration of Damascus ties with the PKK serving to “punish” and destabilise Turkey. The influence of PKK peace negotiations on the PYD can arguably already be seen with escalating tensions between YPG Kurdish forces and regime forces.

 

Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who for many is staking his political career in the rapprochement with Ocalan, is seeking to make a number of gains in one move.

It cannot ignore the onset of Syrian Kurdish autonomy which raises the nationalist stake for all Kurds and in the fast changing Middle East and surrounded by all four parts of Kurdistan, it can risk animosity with the Kurds at its peril.

Last but not least, peace with the PKK removes one remaining thorn in the already strong and prosperous relations between the Kurdistan Region and Ankara. With expanding energy ties with Erbil and unprecedented trade volumes not to mention the importance of strategic and political alliances with the Kurdistan Regional Government, Ankara can ill-afford to let out-dated nationalist principles mark the growing reality of a new middle Eastern order and with it the rise of the Kurds. Ankara can either ignore the Kurdish nationalist reality to its detriment or harness it for the betterment of Turkey’s regional and strategic goals.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

In the new Turkey, how happy is the one who says “I am a Turk or a Kurd”

Leave a reply

The Imrali peace process in Turkey has created an environment, support base and sense of expectancy that has never been seen before. There is great hope that the new bridge building initiative will lead to the ultimate quest of long-term peace, laying down of arms and a new chapter in the history of the Turkish republic.

Public opinion both within Turkish and Kurdish circles indicate that people are fed up with decades of war and suffering and yearn for peace. Even the staunchest Turkish nationalist has come to terms with the limits of military power. How many billions of dollars of lost expenditure and sheer resources been consumed by one of the largest armies in NATO, yet almost 3 decades on and the loss of thousands of lives of later, the cyclic battle has only served to deepen the divide and inflame tensions  in Turkey.

The open keenness of the AKP government and official support for talks with imprisoned PKK leader, Abdullah Ocalan, long-time public enemy number one and now seemingly the key facilitator to peace, speaks volumes about changing sentiment.

The lack of a genuine desire for talks, absence of real concessions and common mistrust have in the past quickly clouded any prospects of real peace. Indeed only sincere and bold efforts will realise a new dawn.

In a second visit by a Pro-Kurdish Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) delegation since the turn of the year, deputies Sırrı Süreyya Önder, Pervin Buldan and Altan Tan visited Ocalan in the island prison of Imrali to discuss and outline the next steps in the peace process.

Although, the roadmap rumoured to have been agreed between Ocalan and Hakan Fidan, the head of National Intelligence Organization (MİT), was not revealed or the specific details of the delegations meeting with Ocalan was not known, according to the three BDP members, Ocalan had referred to the new peace process as a historic step and emphasised on all sides to show “care and sensitivity.”

There were also indications from the BDP delegation’s statement that Ocalan and the PKK were ready to release captives, likely in exchange for release of KCK prisoners, as part of the initial steps.

The roadmap and next steps are likely to be publicised shortly by both sides, although the sense of caution is understandable. Current hopes and expectations have to be put into perspective.  It has taken years and much suffering to even reach this juncture, both sides will maneuverer carefully, but what is clear is that if the chance for peace is missed this time around, Turkey may regret it for many years to come.

The whole unnecessary and largely irrelevant argument over which BDP members would visit Ocalan in the latest round of talks shows the sensitivity and wariness of the Turkish government. It wants to be seen to have the upper-hand in this process and that it is calling the shots. The AKP government as ever have the difficult job of appeasing all sections of society, especially nationalists hawks, who have often put a spanner in the works.

The Turkish government must also expect some responsibility for the lack of Kurdish interlocutors on the ground. The PKK has continued to dominate the Kurdish landscape and Ocalan, in spite of his virtual isolation for 14 years, still holds the largest sway and reverence amongst the Kurds. BDP politicians are the very people voted by Turkish citizens in a legal and transparent way and who have seats in the Turkish parliament, and yet the BDP has been blighted by both the governments’ tendency to undermine their influence and PKK’s continuing dominance of Kurdish hearts and minds. The 10% parliamentary threshold has hardly helped the Kurdish political and democratic movement.

The Kurdish rebels are willing to initiate a ceasefire and withdraw beyond the Turkish borders, after all “ceasefires”, albeit unilateral ones are not new. But it is whether the rebels can be adequately appeased. Are rebels just going to simply lay down their arms after decades of battle and thousands of sacrifices? Of course, as part of any precondition, Turkey must take bold and historic steps.

There is no better place to start then the very political and social blueprint of the country, its constitution. A new constitution that recognises the Kurds and enshrines their rights, including a level of autonomy, is of paramount importance. The new Turkey must embrace a partnership between Kurds and Turks, Turkey will always comprise of two components but who live, work and prosper together hand-in-hand and side-by-side. This new Turkey must be a bi-national state based on equality and brotherhood.

Public surveys are important gauge of government performance and public opinion but any decision on the Imrali process cannot and will not satisfy all parties. Sometimes politicians must make decisions not to just appease the present constituents but to also safeguard the future wellbeing of a nation.

The will and desire of the Kurds and Turks must not be broken by minorities who will continue to insist on violent means of achieving their goals or by those who hold onto imperialistic ideals. There are many parties within Turkey and the surrounding region who seek to derail peace.

Surveys on whether Kurds and Turks can live together detract from the bigger picture, Kurds and Turks have lived together, largely peacefully, for hundreds of years.

The time for violence and armed rebellions is certainly over but so is the time for out-dated ethos and a society based on inequality. In the new Turkey, how happy is the one who says I am a Turk or a Kurd.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources:  Various Misc.

The ironic American-Turkish twist on Kurdistan

Leave a reply

The Middle East can be an ironic stage. Only a few years ago, the US administration, deep in its Iraqi quagmire, was reassuring the Turks about the unity of Iraq and pressing an anxious Ankara towards diplomacy over potential conflict with Kurdistan.

Fast forward to 2013, and it is the Americans who are worried that increasingly close alliances between Ankara and Erbil is fuelling the disintegration of Iraq. American views are mirrored by Baghdad who accuses Turkey of dividing Iraq.

There is no doubt that ties between Turkey and the Kurdistan Region are miles apart from that of 2008 when Turkey invaded, harsh rhetoric was the norm and even recognition of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) was a bitter pill to swallow.

But in the fast changing socio-political whirlwind of the new Middle East, 5 years is an awfully long time. Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds have become natural allies and have much to gain politically and economically, in particular from Kurdistan’s immense energy potential.

And it is these energy ties that continue to underpin and consolidate strong relations between both governments that are the source of discomfort for Baghdad and Washington.

Baghdad’s all too frequent cries and threats against KRG energy deals with foreign firms is hardly a new phenomenon nor has it deterred the Kurds or oil majors who have started to stream in. The underlining question is what are the Kurds doing illegally? Are they breaking laws or is Baghdad’s only gripe Kurdistan’s growing strategic clout and economic prominence?

In a further twist of irony, while Washington has tried to slow down Kurdistan’s growing independence and close ties with Ankara, US oil majors Chevron and Exxon-Mobil have signed key agreements with the KRG. This is in addition to Total and Gazprom who have joined the ranks.

If it was so illegal to deal with Kurdistan and such deals were “unconstitutional”, why would oil majors flock to do business?

There is growing talk of a “secret” framework agreement signed between Turkey and the KRG around the transportation and marketing of oil and gas from Kurdistan directly to Turkey.

Kurdish plans to build an independent pipeline to Turkish ports are hardly a secret or a new initiative. Broad plans including oil pipe-lines were announced publicly last year at the international energy conference hosted in Erbil.

It goes without saying the political importance of a national hydro-carbon law for Iraq, but 6 years since the last draft was sidelined, efforts to reconcile differences have been lacking and Nouri al-Maliki’s government has done little to bridge major disputes with Kurdistan, and not only in the energy sector.

The Kurds are faced with a predicament to either wait indefinitely on Baghdad and be at their mercy on oil exports or drive their own destiny with the legal basis to do so.

The stop start nature of oil exports via Kurdistan and the bitter disputes over payments to foreign companies is synonymous with many other disputes between Erbil and Baghdad.

The control of oil exports is one remaining noose that Baghdad has around Kurdistan and this is also manipulated in other political struggles against the Kurds.

Recently, KRG has started to export independently via trucks to meet domestic demand much to the fury of Baghdad. But it appears that with Turkish support and growing confidence, the Kurdish patience with the Baghdad waiting game is running thin.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in a major boost to Kurdish ties, defended Turkish energy cooperation with Kurdistan. Erdogan deemed such ties as legal and in line with Iraq’s constitution and stated they were merely helping their neighbour meet their needs.

Political ramifications

There is no doubt that Turkish ties with America has rapidly cooled, especially as Turkey has looked increasingly east. Turkey is attempting to adapt to a new Middle East, seeks a proactive role in current conflicts, particularly in Syria, while it perceives the Obama administration as increasingly distant, slow and indecisive.

Washington is particularly uneasy about deteriorating Turkish ties with Israel and cautioned Turkey on recent “inflammatory” statements.

Turkey has also realised necessity of peace at home at a time of Middle Eastern sandstorms with a new reach-out to the PKK and its own Kurds. It deems new strategic relations with the Iraqi Kurds as a bridge with its own Kurdish community.

Closer cooperation with Iraqi Kurds comes at a time when Turkey is increasingly wary of Maliki and his Iranian influence.

U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Francis J. Ricciardone, warned that “If Turkey and Iraq fail to optimize their economic relations… There could be more violent conflict in Iraq and the forces of disintegration within Iraq could be emboldened.”

This follows previous warnings by Ricciardone and other senior US diplomats.

With Maliki at the helm and with a continuous policy of lip-service to implementation of key constitutional articles, division and the disintegration of Iraq is intensifying. There is no fear of something breaking when it is already broke.

With a fragile government, monopolisation of power under Maliki, renewed sectarianism, a lack of security and deep distrust and discord throughout Iraqi circles, is it really the Kurds who are the source of the Iraqi divide?

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources:  Various Misc.

Reality versus ideology – approaching the Kurdish question

Leave a reply

The great shifts in the political and strategic landscape of the Middle East was merely accelerated by the Arab Spring, it had begun long before that. The much repressed Kurds who long lived in the shadows of other nations were at the forefront of this new Middle East.

The Kurdish renaissance has begun and while the many historic wrongs against the Kurds cannot be merely rewritten overnight, the Kurds are escaping from the chains of misfortune and are no longer the inferior components of the policies of states they were forcibly subjected to.

With near independence, a booming economy and new strategic and political clout, the Kurdistan Region has grown from strength to strength. With the Arabian earthquake in Syrian, Kurds have broken from decades of shackles with new autonomy. While, expectations of Kurds in Turkey are growing all the time.

Due to nationalist ideologies of respective countries, the Kurds were denied basic rights or even outright existence. The policy of nationalist idealism was an ignorant and elitist approach that such states could adopt due the political climates of yesteryears and the imperial and colonial mentality that plagued the Middle East.

No matter how entrenched your nationalistic ideology, how strong your nationalist propaganda or how wide your assimilation policies may stretch, all that they merely do is mask reality. The reality is that Kurds are a historic nation with an existence that stretches back thousands of years; they are the fourth largest nationality in the Middle East and the largest ethnicity in the world without a state. The crimes committed against them and their misfortunes since been cruelly carved in pieces, warrants volumes rather than a single article.

However, the point is that after policies of repression and decades of denial, this does not mean that the Kurds should suffice on scraps that governments deem suitable to provide and forgo human rights such as self-determination enshrined in UN charters.

The same dilemma of reality versus ideology now threatens to hit Turkey hard. Turkey after years of tough rhetoric and threats finally realised that the Kurdistan Region or the de-facto Kurdish state was not going to go away. It eventually came to terms with  accepting and benefiting from this reality, rather than wasting valuable energy denying it based on historical fears and outdated nationalist ethos.

Turkey and the Kurdistan Region are now natural allies and have a mutual benefit that is growing at a rapid rate. Turkey needs a stable, secular, prosperous and friendly Kurdistan in the turbulent sectarian shifting of the Middle East and Kurdistan Region relies on Turkey for its economic growth, strategic influence and the path to Europe that it provides.

Turkey has now got a unique opportunity to strike long-term peace with the PKK and mend the broken bridges with its Kurdish community. Neither of these tasks is impossible but it needs new endeavour, trust, practical measures and acceptance of inevitabilities.

These inevitabilities entail that the Kurdish question or the PKK dilemma will not go away, but on the contrary as the Kurdish standing increases in the Middle East, so will the power and prominence of Turkey’s Kurds.

Real peace will not be achieved if Turkey believes that is sufficient to simply give Kurds rights that they should not have been deprived of in the first place. Kurds are now looking beyond basic rights and towards real concessions from the Turkish government.

A rewriting of the constitution is a must. The Kurdish status as the second ethnicity in Turkey and their respective rights must be enshrined in law. A prosperous partnership, increased employment and rebuilding projects in the south east will bring the Kurds closer not further from Ankara.

If the Kurdish question can be truly resolved, then this naturally opens new doors for Turkeys EU aspirations. Turkish Kurds can enjoy EU benefits, as well as the Kurdistan Region knowing that it will have the EU on its door step.

The Kurdish question and the PKK question are one and the same. Provide greater rights to Kurds, implement new economic motions in the Kurdish regions and open new doors for the Kurds and support for the PKK will dwindle. The PKK have been the champions of Kurdish rights and their flag bearers, but careful and sincere state overreaches can slowly alienate the PKK.

Kurds are also tired and fed up of fighting, destruction of their areas and the vicious cycle of been stuck between a repressive state and rebel violence.

Overreaches start from above and the latest peace initiative has new momentum and real promise. In this regard, appointments such as Muammer Güler as interior minister, with roots in the Kurdish areas, replacing the unpopular and hawkish Idris Naim Sahin, is just the right tonic.

Turkey’s parliament also passed a symbolic law on Thursday which gave right to Kurds to use their own language in court.

The “Democratic Openings” of previous years stalled as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan become invariably stuck between the past and the future, becoming pinned down by the need to appease nationalist voters and media pressure.

A similar inconsistent or stop-start approach will simply delay the process by a few more years, but Kurds and Turks have no choice but to return to the negotiating table. As the slaying of Sakine Cansiz and other female PKK members showed, there are plenty of sides that seek to destroy peace.

It’s time for Turkey to brave in its actions and break the status quo for the benefit of a new Turkey based on true brotherhood.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources:  Various Misc.

In light of tragic murders, PKK and Turkish state must hold firm to unique peace passage

Leave a reply

In the same vain as previous hopes and initiatives to end Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) hostilities and resolve Turkey’s age old Kurdish dilemma, any step forward has often been met with two steps back. The Turkish failure to acknowledge its Kurdish reality and its instance on a military solution has left this dilemma in somewhat of a vicious cycle. An insurgency nearing almost 3 decades, deaths of over 40,000, the destruction of villages, not to mention the billions of dollars of military expenditure and the considerable polarisation of Kurds and Turks, tells its own story.

Previous attempts at achieving elusive peace with the PKK were thwarted by Turkish nationalists unmoving on Kemalist ideology and out-dated policies, and Kurdish rebels unwilling to back down on what they saw as minimal demands.

It is no surprise that with the prospect of peace growing between the Turkish government and the PKK and the announcement in the Turkish media of an agreed roadmap between imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan and the Turkish interlocutors, a great cloud was quickly placed on the talks by the tragic assassination of Sakine Cansız in Paris, one of the founding members of the PKK, along with two colleagues, Fidan Doğan and Leyla Söylemez.

Any recent air of optimism or aura of hope was quickly overshadowed by the cold-hearted murders as sentiments soon turned to anger, mourning and outrage.

While the question of the culpable and the motives behind the killings naturally dominate the topic, the timing of the incidents speaks volumes.  Whether instigated within the PKK or by Turkish nationalist wings, the end goal is the same, to disrupt and derail the peace process.

Unsuccessful Oslo based talks between the Turkish Intelligence Services (MIT) and the PKK were shrouded with an element of secrecy, but the fact that the latest initiative to break the deadly stalemate was openly discussed and acknowledged by Turkish officials, offered fresh hope and signalled that Turkey was willing to present true overtures and solutions this time and not just rhetoric.

Behind the scenes, Turkey will have always known that cutting the branches of the Kurdish struggle would have been fruitless without cutting the root. However, Turkey remained obstinate on its out-dated ideologies and could not differentiate the Kurdish problem from what it deemed as a terrorist problem.

The armed struggle may have been a tool that has allowed the Kurds a voice at the negotiation table, but it has failed to adapt to geopolitical realities. In the midst of the Arab Spring, grassroots of democracy in the Middle East and a rapidly changing national and strategic outlook for the Kurds, the climate has drastically shifted.

Kurds have new tools and new ways to promote their cause and Turkey can fail to listen at its peril. The Iraqi Kurds, now key strategic political and economic partners of Turkey, have newfound prominence and practical independence while the Syrian Kurds are afforded opportunities that were unthinkable merely a few years ago.

The admission by French President Francois Hollande that he had regular contact with one of the slain, much to the dismay of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, resonates loudly. The Turkish Kurds whether officially or not, enjoy relatively good support from the European communities. The PKK may be on the EU blacklist, but no doubt European politicians in some form or another have symphasised with their cause, if not their tactics. Simply put, the Kurds have more than a strong diplomatic platform now to lay down their arms and end unnecessary violence.

Peace, a resolution to the Kurdish question and a true reconciliation between Kurds and Turks can only serve both nations and the greater good of Turkey.

The Kurds have come a long way and must seize the initiative as much as Turkey must match intent with practical deeds and real compromise. Half-hearted measures suit no side, and any delay to the peace process will merely mean more years of fighting and an eventual return to the negotiation table.

Whether today or tomorrow, the Kurds and Turks have no choice but to sit down and enter dialogue. Anything else simply delays the inevitable.

The tragic death of Sakine Cansız and others need urgent answers; none more so than from the French government on whose soil the crimes were committed. But both the PKK and Turkish government must ensure the voices of moderation prevail.

It is very easy to swing back to the realms of violence and shy away from peace at this sensitive conjecture but this is exactly what the perpetrators of the murders want. The peace process is not at the stage of fully-fledged ceasefire negotiations and can easily evaporate before any real substance is built.

Cansiz did not have an active role in the PKK command, although she continuously supported the rebel cause. He death was more symbolic as a female revolutionary, an icon of resistance and determination and of course as a founding member. It was designed to stir emotion more than deprive the PKK of a leader or handicap the movement.

Elements within both the PKK and Turkish state have reasons to derail the peace process. Ocalan is without a doubt the most influential figurehead of the PKK, but he has not been in active command for almost 14 years. Like any rebel movement, the PKK has its divergent branches and differing ideological and political stances, and Ocalan will not necessarily hold sway over all components.

After nearly 30 years of fighting and countless sacrifices, elements within the PKK will be weary of “selling out” to the arch enemy. For every willing negotiator and moderate voice in the PKK, there are those that prefer to fight to their last breath.

As for Turkish nationalists, the PKK has been a card that they can use to justify the outdated policies of the state, repression of the Kurds and to label the Kurds as the “bad guys”. The PKK has been a means by which Turkish military hawks can justify billions of dollars of expenditure and keep intact Kemalist foundations.

Certain elements within both the PKK and Turkish state have more to lose in peace than in war.

Even Iran and Syria, potential suspects that should not be discounted from the murders, have plenty to lose with peace between PKK and Turkish state. The PKK has been like a wildcard used by various regional actors. The best example is how the PKK struggle was significantly revived as both Damascus and Tehran were keen to punish the influential support of Ankara in the Syrian uprising.

The PKK even has political roots in Syria via the PYD, which has alarmed Turkey, as Syrian Kurds rise to prominence has hit the international spotlight. Peace with the PKK not only gives Turkey reassurances from within but also outside its borders. For the PKK, peace may safeguard and even enhance political gains of their brethren in Syria.

It is of extreme importance that as well as the French government, the Turkish government show their willingness to carry out a thorough and transparent investigation into the killings. The Turkish government must show its hands are clean before it resumes its position at the negotiating table.

The PKK must refrain from accusations and any harming of the peace process while the picture around the murders become clearer and should conduct its own investigations.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources:  Various Misc.

One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter?

Leave a reply

As ever, there is a fine line between a terrorist organisation and freedom fighters. As the old saying goes, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

Perception and the country in question is key as are geopolitics and the context within which the struggles arise.

Many independent countries have come to the fore as a direct result of military uprisings by the people through rebel movements. Two recent examples are Kosovo and South Sudan, both of which their respective rebel movements formed a key part of achieving their nationalist goals.

The Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Hamas are other groups who have sought to secure rights and goals through use of force and have tip-toed a fine line between nationalist struggles and terrorist activities. In the case of Hamas, they are in political power, have foreign relations and are even supported by a number of regional counties, yet many have denoted them as a terrorist organisation.

Now the Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebel movement in Syria, albeit not on the grounds of seeking statehood but nonetheless symbolic freedom akin to other rebel groups, has tremendous international support as did the Libyan rebel movement prior to the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi.

Ask the respective governments that these groups sought to overthrow, and the terms “terrorists mercenaries”, “armed gangs” etc come to mind. Yet ask those who supported the rebel movements, and they will have heralded as revolutionaries, democracy seekers and brave men who stood up to tyranny.

In Kurdistan, the Peshmerga are without a doubt a nationalist icon of the Kurds. Without standing up to the brutality of Saddam, the Kurds would never have achieved their freedom. For the Kurds, the rebel movement was about honour, self-sacrifice and bravery. Yet for Saddam, it was the Kurds and not his barbaric policies that were to blame.

Even the Americans rose up in arms against their British occupiers in the name of freedom as have many other nations throughout history.

The point is depending on what lens the world is viewed, the situation is perceived and treated completely differently and often hypocritically.

Murky definitions

It goes without saying that people often brand terrorism depending on a number of general factors, such as the mode of operation used to seek goals, motivations and characteristics of the group.

An important element here is the popularity and backing of the group. There is certainly difference between a popular national struggle that is waged through a national liberation movement and terrorism that is spurred on by a small minority whose goals is to be recognised, infamy and to generally strike a higher bargain from governments.

Generally speaking nationalist struggle seek to acquire often freedom and rights, while terrorist movements seek to destroy. Yet at the same time, terrorists still try to acquire through destruction, fear and violence.

In any case, the so called credibility and mode of operation of national struggles is a blurred line. How often have we seen bombings of buildings and use of IED’s and hit and run tactics in Syria and Libya, that result in civilian casualties? Rebel movements are no match for the sheer firepower of their adversaries and thus urban guerrilla warfare is almost a necessity.

The key thing is whether there is a purposeful and direct intent to harm the civilian population, which is the case with classic terrorism to gain media coverage and to strike fear. But such terrorist movements often lack true public following and are rarely representative of a large segment of society.

Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)

Turkey has fought a bitter war with the PKK that is a little shy of 30 years. Throughout this time, Turkey has been unable to crush the “terrorists” that it has continuously labelled.

Just what are the PKK? A national struggle or a terrorist organisation? Again, it comes back to the argument of perception. Turkey and most of the west in strategic support of its key allies have been quick to blacklist the PKK as a terrorist organisation.

Others have merely jumped on the new “Assad is supporting and arming the PKK” bandwagon.

All this simply masks reality. The PKK have been around for much longer than the current revolutionary era in Middle East and the situation in Turkey is far from new.

This is not to doubt that the PKK has received backing from Assad or Tehran, indeed the PKK has been used and manipulated effectively by even the US and Turkey.

A life of any human being, Kurdish or Turkish is sacred and as much as a Turkish mother mourns the pain of the loss of her son, it is no different for a Kurdish mother. By no means whatsoever can violent struggles be condoned and in this new era the PKK must ultimately give up its armed struggled, but Turkey has seriously miscalculated the PKK issue and continuous to do so to its detriment.

The PKK started their operation in 1984 on the back of the military junta that gripped Turkey between 1980 and 1983. This was at a time when repressive policies against the Kurds were at their peak.

Now imagine, for one minute that there was never an Abdullah Ocalan or a PKK organisation in existence in Turkey, would there be peace today or would the situation be any different? The simply is an overriding no.

The PKK was born out of the situation, and the situation was not born out of the PKK. In simple terms, if there was no Ocalan or PKK, there would simply have been another leader and another Kurdish group that would have filled the vacuum.

More importantly, the PKK have merely continued the legacy of previous Kurdish revolts, uprisings and armed struggles. Only two years after the proclamation of the republic, Turkey crushed a revolt in 1925. This was just a flavour of what was to come.

Throughout Atatürk’s rule, conflict in the southeast of Turkey was a common feature. The last revolt of that era in Dersim was quelled by sheer force and use of chemical weapons.

It is Turkey that ultimately created the PKK and until this realisation hits home, there will never be peace, brotherhood and harmony in Turkey.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, in an apparent u-turn from his original stance of blaming Assad for rise in PKK violence, summed it up perfectly:

“Terror in Turkey did not appear as a result of the developments in Syria, it is a problem that has lasted for 30 years.”

Is the issue really 5000 or so PKK guerrilla’s or the 15 million Kurds? Lets say that Turkey was able to achieve its long-term goal of eradicating the PKK and 5000 rebels perished, can they guarantee under the current climate that another 5000 would not readily replace them?

Mere branding of the PKK as “terrorists” only services to mask the nationalist struggle that continues to plague Turkey.

Kurdish Rights in Turkey

There is no doubt that the situation of the Kurds in Turkey is a far cry from yesteryears but it has a long way to go, and although inconsistently employed the government has taken a number of bold steps. However, the polarisation of government policies and the military struggles runs too deep for wounds to easily heal.

Ankara has made a number of symbolic strides in addressing its Kurdish issue, but it has seemingly deemed these as sufficient to believe that there is no longer a “Kurdish issue”.

Ironically, the Kurdish issue if anything with the revolutionary winds in the Middle East has increased. Kurds in Turkey see Arabs and even their ethnic brethren achieve rights and yet how can they be expected to settle for the rights that Turkey deems “fair” to provide?

The bottom line is fear. Ankara has always feared the Kurds and for decades was able to effectively subdue them in line with the policies of neighbouring governments against their portion of Kurdish populations.

The more that Turkey continues along the lines of fear, the more that what they fear will come to light.

The violent struggle in Turkey serves no side and most Kurds are fed up of war, impoverishment and lack of investment in their region. Money is an important language and if the Kurds were able to enjoy employment, better standards of living, first class status then Turkey would see just how much the PKK would be supported.

Through the history of the Turkish republic, there have hardly ever been any significant Kurdish parties in parliament and most have been hastily shut down.

Now the BDP is facing the same plight as their predecessor. As violence has escalated in Turkey with August experiencing some of the highest level of confrontations since 1984, a BDP encounter with some PKK rebels caused inevitable uproar. Strangely, there were politicians, rebels and even the media but no state presence.

It is no secret that the PKK has a large support base amongst Kurds in Turkey but for many Kurds the PKK is their FSA, PLO or KLA. For them the PKK represents their national struggle. Not all Kurds agree with violence means but certainly see the PKK as their flag bearer, especially as the voted for AKP in large numbers but grew increasingly frustrated.

Whether open or private, it is not illogical that the PKK would have sentimental support from the BDP. After all they share the same cause and nationalism, if not the same platform.

Only when the grassroots support for the PKK is cut and Kurdish moderates are embraced can Turkey tip the balance against the PKK.

The end game

Most Turks are fierce nationalists and the mere idea of negotiating with the PKK or surrendering to their demands is a major red-line. The battle between the PKK and Ankara has become a question of pride and with sides are as entrenched as ever. No side is willing to cede with fear of their call for peace been perceived as a sign of weakness.

Turkey continues to reassure Kurds on the one hand and battle Kurds on the other, whilst trying to demarcate between a group of rebels and the general Kurdish population. Unfortunately, it is not about a group of rebels. If it was that simple the PKK would have been destroyed a long-time ago. It’s about addressing the root of the issue as opposed to cutting the branches of your problems.

It begs the question of just why Turkey has allowed the struggle to straddle for so long. Without a doubt the PKK has benefited many in the Turkish hierarchy as it has provided fuel to maintain the status-quo.

Times have dramatically changed and as the Middle East unravels, Turkey must either address new realities and influence the present or become swept as history is made.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: eKurd.net, Various Misc.

Turkish opposition in historical step to end Kurdish insurgency

Leave a reply

Historical talks between the Turkish opposition party CHP and ruling AKP promises much, but without a change in ideology and outdated principles and new tangible measures, can a new political process really achieve a different end result?

While Turkey’s current Kurdish policy is a far-cry from the dark days of the past, its “democratic openings” have often stumbled to a halt before they have gained any real motion. Turkey has tried to implement bold measures without a real change in ideology, in parliament, in nationalist circles or in tangible measures.

Contrary to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan previous statements that there is no Kurdish problem but only a terrorist problem, the Kurdish problem rages on and if anything has gained new momentum.

With rapidly changing political realities in the Middle East, Turkey risks been left behind unless it readdresses its strategic role in the region, starting with its greatest problem, its Kurdish minority

Turkey has been waging a war against the PKK and trying to contain its Kurdish population for decades without success. It has to finally come to terms that its real problem is not a few thousand PKK guerillas but its millions of disenfranchised and largely impoverished Kurdish citizens. Its only solution is to resolve the Kurdish issue through parliament, with new legislature and through common dialogue. Turkey cannot continue its failed ideology that PKK can be destroyed by force alone and yet expect to resolve its Kurdish dilemma. You have to address the root of the problem, before wasting energy at merely cutting the branches.

New angle to Kurdish issue

The PKK is clearly enjoying a new lease of life with support from Damascus much to the dismay of Ankara and deriding the government’s belief that they will “render terrorists ineffective”. These days, the Kurdish issue in Turkey is far from been confined as a domestic issue. The Kurdistan Region, with its own escalating crisis with Baghdad, is heading closer to self-sufficiency and independence through new oil infrastructure and new sway on pan-Kurdish nationalism, and more importantly a new alliance with Ankara as Turkish relations have wavered with neighboring countries.

The situation of the Syrian Kurds, with or without Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has drastically shifted and they will enjoy new leverage. The PKK is enjoying fresh support amongst the already fractured Syrian Kurds, serving to create another headache for Ankara. One way or another, the Kurdish issue is no longer a domestic issue and needs a fresh approach, and new forward thinking away from outdates ethos.

Opposition plan

Against a backdrop of the Syrian crisis, escalating PKK violence, Ankara’s cooling of ties with Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad and an increasing wedge between its Kurdish citizens, Turkey cannot stay idle.

As such, the main Turkish opposition’s proposed initiatives this week in tackling the Kurdish problem and ending the insurgency, the first time the opposition have instigated such measures, is a positive development.

The leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP), Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, had a historic meeting with Erdoğan of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) where he put forward a 10-point solution to the ending the vicious violence with the PKK that for decades has crippled much of the south-east and to reconcile with its Kurdish citizens.

The principle behind Kılıçdaroğlu approach is that a solution to the Kurdish problem requires a “national contract”. A measure he believes that can only be achieved through a parliamentary process.

Kılıçdaroğlu attributed blame to the political process for failure to resolve its age-old dilemma, “Why could this problem not be solved over the last 25, 30 years? Why could terrorism not be ended? The only responsibility for this is with politics as an institution,” he asked.

The proposed measures include the creation of create an eight-member cross-party Social Consensus Commission augmented by a 12-person non-parliamentary committee selected by the four parliamentary parties.

Both the Erdogan and Kılıçdaroğlu labeled the meetings as positive which also had support of the pro-Kurdish BDP. However, the nationalist handicap, one of the reasons why Erdogan backtracked on the 2009 Kurdish Opening against a backdrop of hawkish circles and nationalist anger, will likely derail the plans for cross-party consensus.

The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) did not take part in the talks with party leader Devlet Bahçeli accusing the government of “legitimizing terror”.

Change of direction from Opposition

Erdogan and Kılıçdaroğlu seldom meet and have often clashed over granting Kurds greater rights and thus their rapprochement is the right tonic to kick-start resolution of its Kurdish problem.

The seemingly change of heart from the opposition may not be purely due to a desire to finally come to terms with the Kurdish equation.

The CHP also sense a political chance to win-over the Kurdish vote at a time when frustration with the AKP is rife with the perceived insincerity of the government towards the unfortunate Roboski massacre and its stalled Kurdish initiative. It is an opportunity to build links in the south east where social-democrats are a scarcity and also tap into the liberal support.

It is also an opportunity for the CHP to weaken any reconciliation between the AKP and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) in particular over the new constitution. AKP controversial policies such as those proposed over abortion also serve as an opportunity for CHP to secure more points.

The bottom line is that CHP can no longer stay on the side-lines of the Kurdish issue and forgo the Kurdish vote if it has any aspiration for power for the sake of its outdated ideals.

The way forward

If the killing of 34 young villages of Uludere by Turkish forces in a case of mistaken identity was a sincerity test for the government, then the government has badly failed. This further alienated the Kurds and exposed limits to the AKP reach out to the Kurds.

However, above all else, it is lack of real intent and sincerity that has crippled previous democratic openings.

It’s not arriving at a political process that will resolve the Kurdish issue and put an end to the insurgency, but concrete measures and a new dose of reality in applying practical solutions.

Turkey cannot change the end result, no matter what process it ensues, with the same historical ideology.

On the one hand it reaches out to the Kurds, on the other it arrests thousands of Kurdish political figures including BDP mayors and most recently Leyla Zana under the same harsh penal code of yesteryear.

It has too often overlooked the BDP and its previous manifestations, and has been too quick to label any nationalist Kurd or Kurdish political party as a supporter of the PKK.

Ankara has also tried to end the insurgency without paying any relevance to serious dialogue with other party in the military equation, the PKK.

The PKK, in spite of a nationalist reprisal that will inevitably come, must form a direct part of this initiative. Their support base has swollen over the years, with the government playing a big part in this, and changes in Kurdish sentiment will not be wholesale overnight.

However, what is clear is that most Kurds are long-fed up of been caught between PKK violence and outdated and insincere government policies. The new initiative must give the Kurds a way out and a new vision that they can truly buy into. Pro-Kurdish should not automatically be labeled as pro-PKK.

Facing facts

Facing facts is the only way Ankara can shatter old conceptions and herald a new dawn with its Kurds. Millions of its citizens need to enjoy the same rights as anyone else in Turkey. The millions of its citizens should not be punished only because their ethnicity and heritage is not Turkish. Kurdish culture and history should be embraced as a core component of the Turkish landscape.

The Kurdish nationalist vehicle is gaining momentum and either Turkey can keep pace and try and influence events to its advantage, or it can be a passive bystander as winds of change rapidly rattle the very nucleus of the Middle East.

The initiative promises renewed hope, but is uncertain whether Turkey has the stomach for real compromise, swallowing of nationalist pride or swaying from the foundations of Kemalist ideology.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

Turkey and Kurdistan’s new focus on “what unites us rather than what divides us”

Leave a reply

As the political gulf between Baghdad and Kurdistan continues to grow at a rapid rate, and Ankara revaluates its position in Iraq and the Middle East, the alliance between Turkey and Kurdistan assumes a new dawn.

The Middle East crisis has meant that sectarian, political, economic and strategic tides have dramatically shifted.

As Turkey’s “zero problems” policy with their neighbours has slowly unravelled, this has continuously made Ankara and Kurdistan natural allies, a far cry from the more tenuous relations of just a few years ago.

In recent weeks both the Kurdistan President Massaud Barzani and Kurdistan Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani have participated in productive and high-profile visits to Turkey, a symbol of the growing respect and solidarity that is pushing the two parties together.

Too often relations in the past have been based on the ideals of “what divides us, rather than what unites us”. Turkey may have a historical fear of Kurdish nationalism but it has slowly come to terms with the huge benefits that stability and constructive relations with the Kurds bring.

While politics plays a big part, especially, as the political earthquake across the Middle East has left governments scurrying to revaluate their positions, ultimately money talks and no rational government can ignore the massive trade and energy opportunities that come with a growing economic power-house such as Kurdistan.

Iraq is already Turkeys biggest trade partner, with Kurdistan accounting for the majority of that trade.

Kurdistan is the next energy hub of the Middle East and with its immense oil and gas reserves, Turkey stands to benefit tremendously with a close alliance with the Kurds.

This led to an inevitable energy pact with Turkey and Kurdistan that was always going to stir tensions in Baghdad.

Oil pipeline enhances autonomy

Kurdistan and Turkey used the international energy conference hosted in Erbil to outline details of a new pipeline that will drastically alter the political and economic map of Iraq and the greater region.

Kurdistan Minister of Natural Resources, Ashti Hawrami, confirmed the proposal of a new pipeline to be built within the next 12 months with a capacity of 1 million barrel per day that will carry Kurdish oil and gas via the Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline to Turkey.

The first phase of the pipeline scheduled for completion by October 2012 will carry crude from the Taq Taq oilfield. The second phase is due for completion by August 2013.

Kurdistan then plans to build a separate pipeline by 2014 that would connect to refineries in Ceyhan.

The new pipeline will greatly diminish Kurdistan’s dependence on Baghdad both for exportation of oil and import of refined oil products and also ensure that Kurdistan has an oil exportation infrastructure solely within their territory.

Baghdad unsurprisingly denounced the deal with a repeat of its usual rhetoric that all deals must be ratified by the federal government. Nechirvan Barzani reiterated the long-time Kurdish position that their oil deals fall within the remits of the constitution, while stating at the energy conference, “unlike some of the officials of the federal government in Baghdad, we believe that our policies in the field of energy and natural resources should be based on cooperation and coordination, and not on hostility, confrontation and retaliation.”

The fact that Turkey had a high-profile representation including Energy and Natural Resources Taner Yildiz, demonstrated Ankara’s willingness to deal with Kurds directly at the expense of angering Baghdad.

The one last rope that Baghdad has over Kurdistan is over oil. By taking export infrastructure, size and format of exports and receipt of the respective revenues, Kurdistan seeks to break that rope. Currently, oil exports in Kurdistan are halted over dispute of payments to foreign parties.

However, dispute over oil exports is just tip of the iceberg as relations between Baghdad and Erbil have drastically declined, with Massaud Barzani in repeated remarks making it very clear that Kurds will no longer tolerate the policies of Nouri al-Maliki and will take matters into their own hands if the situation doesn’t change.

The fact that Barzani openly repeated this warning in Ankara to Turkish leaders shows an increasingly confident Kurdistan but also shows that Turkey is slowly coming to terms with realities on the ground.

Zero problems policy backfires

At the current time Turkey is far from its doctrine of zero problems with its neighbours. Its increasingly dragged into the uprising in Syria as its opposition to Bashar al-Assad has accelerated, especially as Damascus renews its ties and support of the PKK. Its relations with Iran has cooled as Tehran has sided with Assad, refused to backdown over its nuclear ambitions while becoming uncomfortable with the idea of Turkey hosting a NATO anti-missile shield just next door. Its relations with Baghdad have deteriorated with harsh exchange of words in recent weeks between Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Maliki that were exasperated with Ankara affectively affording protection to exiled Sunni Vice-President, Tariq al-Hashemi and accusing Maliki of monopolising power and stoking sectarian tensions.

The end result is that Turkey needs the secular Kurds as a strategic political ally and as a key buffer to Shiite dominance, to put pressure on Iraqi Kurds to leverage influence over the Kurds in Syria to back the Arab dominated Syrian opposition, and as a way of maintaining equilibrium in a fast changing region.

In addition, as one of the fastest growing economies in the world, Turkish energy demands are increasing all the time. It has an overriding reliance on Russia and particularly Iran which provides a third of its gas supplies, for its energy needs.

Turkey is already a key part of the 1 million bpd Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea. Oil and gas supplies from Kurdistan will quench its own energy first but also allow it to diversify its current dependence on limited sources, whilst at the same time confirming its role as a strategic energy hub of Europe that will bring with its levies and taxes billions of dollars of revenue to Turkey.

Oil in Kurdistan belongs to Kurds

On paper Iraq is one of richest countries in the world with its immense oil reserves. However, for decades upon end the people have endured suffering as opposed to prosperity for their divine gift.

In the example of Kurdistan, oil revenues were used not to promote unity and brotherhood but to purchase apparatus to systemically oppress the Kurds and destroy their villages and livelihood.

One can only imagine what Kurdistan or the rest of Iraq for that matter would look like if vast oil revenues were used in a rightful and productive manner.

Now the pages of history have turned and a new dawn has arrived. Kurdistan can look to Baghdad for their rewards from the oil reserves and rely on Arab sentiments, or take matters into their own hands and use oil in Kurdistan for their own benefit.

This doesn’t mean that Kurds will not abide by the constitution or their allocated share of revenues; it just means that it doesn’t wait indefinitely for fairness and equitable distribution of wealth that Hawrami has alluded to.

Indeed the implementation of revenue sharing and Iraqis getting a fair slice of the cake whilst adhering to a constitution approved by the majority of the population can bring unity. But this is Iraq after all and one shouldn’t hold it breath with distant dreams.

Note of caution to Kurds

Whilst relations with Turkey are increasingly strong with the crisis in the Middle East and Turkey’s frosty relations with their neighbours pushing them closer to the Kurds, in the Middle East nothing is irreversible.

Turkey is still weary of Kurdish independence, anxious over the possibility of another Kurdistan developing on its doorstep in Syria and above all has a major Kurdish problem that it has failed to effectively address for many decades.

Furthermore, any ties or deal should be as much on Kurdish terms as Turkish terms. The need for unity in Kurdistan is as great as ever as is the need to become self-sufficient and protect their future and not rely on existing socio-political sentiment that can later undercut the Kurds as witnessed in the past.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.

Withdraw without condition

Leave a reply

As Turkey enters Iraq for “revenge”, the wider context is overlooked once more  

A chilling and coordinated attack by PKK rebels that led to the death of at least 24 Turkish soldiers and many wounded sent shockwaves throughoutTurkey.

Such was the determination for a harsh response that the Turkish army quickly launched a massive ground invasion of Kurdistan on yet another quest to defeat the rebels. “A large-scale land operation, backed by air strikes, has begun in five separate spots insideTurkeyand across the border with 22 battalions,” the military general staff said in a statement.   

Turkish president, Abdullah Gul had vowed “revenge” and a stern response under a watchful and enraged public eye. The harsh Turkish reprisal may benefit the PKK as it means a renewed straining of ties between Ankara and Erbil, places the Iraqi Kurds into a difficult corner and simultaneously diminishes the chances of a political resolution to the Kurdish problem inTurkey.

The President of the Kurdistan Region, Massoud Barzani, strongly condemned the latest attacks while labeling the event as a “crime”. With Nechirvan Barzani already inAnkara, the common theme was to soothe Turkish tensions and reinforce brotherhood betweenTurkeyand the Kurdistan Region. However, ultimately Ankara would not be swayed from its intent to show the PKK and possibly even Erbil just who calls the shots in the region. 

Clashes between troops and rebels have intensified in the aftermath of the recent national elections inTurkey, resulting in significant aerial bombardment and shelling by Turkish forces in the border regions in recent months. However, the manner of the recent attacks, which coincided with the establishment of a committee to oversee the rewriting of the Turkish constitution, sent alarm bells ringing in Ankara and under a cloud of public anger forced the Turkish government to respond with strong measures.

The attacks by rebels resulted in the biggest military death toll since 1993 and were met with international wide condemnation.

As many political powers renewed their support for the Turkish quest to eradicate the rebels, there is a great danger that once againTurkeyand its allies are overlooking the wider context of events.

Such was the nature of the attack that none would expect Turkey remain idle but it is easy for foreign powers to look at this as an individual incident rather than with the framework that the issue deserves.

This is a deep-rooted, emotively-charged and bloody 27-year war that has cost in excess of 40,000 lives, billions of dollars, destruction of villages and caused immense mental scarring. This is the not the first attack and certainly not the last. History has clearly proved the limits of military power even for the second largest army in NATO.

As long as the Kurdish political actors in Turkey remain weak and the Kurds are deprived of real political representation, the PKK will continue to act as the default flag-bearer of the Kurds, even if it does not necessarily represent the greater will of the Kurdish population. The growing focus on PKK as the source of the Kurdish problem and the ongoing energy consumed by the government to defeat the rebels as a way to overcome the Kurdish issue places the Kurds into a difficult predicament.

The greater Kurdish population yearns for peace and not violence and is tired and frustrated from decades of political, social and economic handicaps that the ongoing conflict has caused.

Turkey has acted against the PKK and this is a natural retaliation for any government, however, it needs to urgently employ a dual approach whereby it also reassures the greater Kurdish population of the Turkish will for fraternity, to solve their age old Kurdish dilemma, that the democratic opening remains a priority and that the government does not intend to punish all Kurds for the actions of a few.

The era of violence in the pursuit of political goals has certainly diminished but Turkey must also prove that it has turned the page not just in words but also in practical steps.

The Turkish state belongs to both the Kurds and Turks and this is a fact that nothing can mask. Only true reconciliation and brotherhood can propelTurkeyto the heights it intends to achieve and mentalities and policies of the past can never exclusively disadvantage the Kurdish populated south eastern part ofTurkey.

The Kurds can be factor that fuels a new strategic strength of Turkey in Europe and Asia or it can be factor that will indefinitely blight and drag the whole of Turkeyas a “sick power”.

As emotions run dangerously high inTurkey, it is of paramount importance that the US, European and regional powers act as a blanket of comfort to both Turks and Kurds. Obliterating the Iraqi Kurdistan regional areas with a show of firepower will never achieve Turkish goals. If a military solution was such a viable reality all these years, why wouldTurkeywait until 2011 and thousands of lives later to resolve this issue?

US President Barrack Obama, whilst harshly condemning the attacks inTurkey, emphasizes that “…the Turkish people, like people everywhere, deserve to live in peace, security and dignity.” While Obama’s statement is valid, there should not be hesitation by world powers to utter the word “Kurds” in the same breath.

There should be a distinct emphasis on the equal rights of the Kurdish population to live in peace, security and within the framework of international charters. While Turkey has made a number of strides in this regard, it is by no means at the level expected for a global power that is actively seeking to expand its sphere of influence.

Turkey continues to live under fear of its significant Kurdish minority rather than embracing them as a true and integral component of the state. At the same time, the Kurds look towards Turkeywith distrust and lack of conviction.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon emphasised the necessity for both Iraq and Turkeyto work together to end what he deemed as “unacceptable” cross-border attacks by Kurdish PKK rebels. Ban’s insistence that the sovereignty of both Turkey and Iraq must be respected was a welcome step. This matter is not simply about appeasing angry or nationalistic sentiments inAnkara, the matter has far greater ramifications across the region.

Within Turkey itself, the much maligned BDP found itself engrossed in the cross fire yet again. It has been subject to heavy criticism by the Turkish government which has culminated in an all time low for relations between both parties as a result of the Kurdish boycott of parliament and the subsequent unilateral declaration of democratic autonomy in the Kurdish areas.

BDP co-chairpersons Gülten Kışanak and Selahattin Demirtaş called for peace as the only solution in a written statement, “We say ‘enough’ to this war and these deaths. The painful picture today once again shows that Turkey urgently needs peace…”

In spite of calls for unity and reconciliation by the BDP, the AKP government quickly poured water on any air of sincerity or warmth generated by such overtures by once again branding the BDP and the PKK with the same brush.

The AKP, which still received a large portion of Kurdish votes, should not renege on its promise to implement its democratic opening or to focus on developing the south eastern region. The idea that there is no longer a Kurdish problem but a terrorism problem is wrong. The so-called terrorist issue comes from the Kurdish problem the Kurdish problem does not come from the terrorism issue.

One of the main reasons for the stalling of the democratic opening was the increasing nationalist resistance inTurkey. The rising hawkish voices ensure that the hands of the government become restrained and progress reverses rather than making any significant strides forward.

As Turkey answers Kurdish rebels with a strong fist, it must also show the Kurds that it will not forsake their rights, demands and voices for the sake of the appeasing only the Turkish sentiments.

More importantly, Turkey should do all it can to respect the sovereignty of the KRG and withdraw without condition.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Hewler Post (Kurdish), Online Opinion, eKurd, Various Misc.

Turkey’s new saviour role in the region undercut by its refusal to resolve age-old issue at home

Leave a reply

Turkish support of Palestinian statehood and human rights in the Middle East is all the more ironic as the real issue of the region, a solution to the Kurdish national struggle is overlooked.

As Turkey attempts to accelerate itself as a reborn champion of the Middle East, at the same time its highly anticipated “Democratic Opening” aimed at resolving its age old Kurdish dilemma has ground to a halt. Turkey continues a reach out to its neighbours but increasingly neglects to resolve historic problems on its doorstep.

In the past few years, Turkey has increasingly strengthened its influence over the eastern Mediterranean and the greater Middle East. While for decades Turkey looked more closely to its West than its Eastern frontier, there has clearly been a shift as it tries to muster an Ottoman-like prominence over the region.

With the prospect of EU membership seemingly  becoming more distant and the growing economical connotations that have come with improving relations with its eastern neighbours coupled with the huge energy incentives that come with Turkey’s unique geographical location, Turkey has realised that the key to its future lies with its past.

As Turkey has moved closer to its Arab and Iranian neighbours its relations with Israel have deteriorated exponentially much to the dismay of the US. The growing popularity of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan coincides with the Arab spring where Turkey promoted itself as a saviour of repressed peoples and a stalwart of human rights.

While Arabs may have gained tremendously from the historic revolutionary dawn, this has placed Israel into tight corner where its relative peace with Egypt and its neighbours has been greatly jeopardised.

One the back of rising anti-Israeli rhetoric, now Turkey finds itself at the spearhead of a contentious plan by the Palestinian government to push through recognition of statehood at the UN. This has placed the US under a challenging predicament were it could easily veto such proposals but ultimately face a great own-goal in its credibility in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

At same time as building bridges with the Arab community, Turkey continues to foster warm ties with Tehran. Suddenly Turkey finds itself with a hand in critical matters across the region from Cairo, Jerusalem, Damascus, Beirut and Baghdad to Tehran.

With Turkey enjoying a regional renaissance akin to its yesteryears keeping them onside has been ever more critical for the US.

All the while as Turkey flexes its new socio-political muscles, its Achilles heel remains on the backburner but as fervent as ever – a genuine solution to its Kurdish problem. It seems that whenever a social earthquake strikes the Middle East from the post Ottoman days to the current Arab spring, it is the Kurds that lose out.

Turkey’s passionate defence of what it deems rightful Palestinian statehood is all the more ironic as it denied the mere existence of the Kurds for decades. But as the Kurdish problem gathers dust on Ankara’s political shelf, just who is pressurising the Turks to resolve its age old problem?

Palestinian may be deserving of statehood but can anyone genuinely say that a 22nd Arab state is more justified than Kurdish independence?

The Kurds continue to act as one of most pro-US groups around, yet the US is rushing to appease Turkish demands at the expense of Kurds to save face at the UN and keep its other historic allies onside. A trade-off for a Turkish backdown on its insistence on unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence is likely to be direct American assistance to oust the PKK rebels, including deployment of US predator drones.

It is remarkable that as the Kurdistan Region gets bombed from both sides of its border and as Baghdad attempts to dilute their power to the south, the US keeps a silent profile.

Rather than propelling the steady Kurdish advancement, it appears leaning towards its “bigger” partners who appear intent on not just reining the Kurdish rebels but the region itself. Turkish and Iranian firepower serves as a reminder to the Kurdistan Region as much as the rebels just who calls the shots in the region.

Kosovar independence was fast tracked with the assistance of the EU, US and Turkey as a justified special case, much in the same way as South Sudan and now Palestine looks to join the list sooner or later.

Ironically, those same powers also consider Kurdistan a special case but to detriment of the Kurdish nation. Kurdish independence is considered a special case due to geopolitical ramifications i.e. fear that Kurdish independence in any of its parts would cause tidal waves and instability in others.

However, those that consider Kurdistan a special case are those same powers that created this artificial predicament.

As Kurdistan was selfishly carved up and denied the same rights that were given to other ethnicities, who asked the Kurds how they wanted to decide their own destiny?

While all parts of Kurdistan have undergone decades of repression and genocide under successive regimes, where was the US, UN and Europe to champion their rights or talk about “justified cases”?

Any established nation has the right to unmolested existence, to decide its own affairs and to express cultural freedom. No nation has the right to submerge, rule-over or deny outright another nation.

 These fundamental principles are one of the main reasons why the League of Nations and later the UN was created and why many wars have been waged against rogue regimes and dictators trespassing international charters.

 Clearly, in the case of Kosovo, South Sudan and Palestine such international charters are interpreted and implemented to suit strategic, ideological and political goals.

 The Kurdistan Region can be a power to be reckoned with if it maintains internal unity and refuses to succumb to bullying from regional and global powers and double standards to the adoption of UN charters.

 There is no doubt that the Kurdistan Region relies greatly on Turkish and Iranian support but they must not accept to be viewed as inferior partners but great strategic actors in their own rights. Kurdistan has masses of oil at its disposal and neighbouring partners are starting to realise a long held anxiety, a Kurdish boom underpinned by oil.

PKK and PJAK must lay down their arms for the days of armed struggles are gone. But the end of such rebel groups must be met with a genuine opportunity for peace and brotherhood. If Turkey continues to view the Kurdish issue as a terrorist issue then another 100 years will not end bloodshed and suffering. If the fundamental social polarisation remains intact, the demise of one rebel will simply result in the rise of another.

As Turkey builds extensions to its formidable looking house, without a true resolution to its Kurdish issue, its foundations are susceptible to crumbling at any time.

As for the US and UN, rather than  a continuation of supporting policies detrimental to the Kurdish cause, they must employ a genuine desire and effort to resolve the real issue of the Middle East – Kurdistan, not Palestine.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Various Misc.