Turkey and the EU relations has evolved with lots of difficulties since Turkey’s application date for full membership on September 12, 1987. Historically, Turkey was strategically important country for the EU. On the other hand, there were plenty of obstacles for Turkey’s membership to the union. Although some barriers were overcame by the efforts of both sides, there are still obstacles. These obstacles vary from the role of the military in the civilian government to the Turkey’s economic problems. The minority issue is one of those barriers. In fact, “respect for and protection of minorities” is one of the principles accepted in the Copenhagen Criteria which defines whether a country is eligible to join the European Union.
Turkey’s Kurdish issue, in this sense, is one of the stumbling blocks of Turkey on the road to EU accession. On October 3, 2005, when the European Union formally initiated accession negotiations with Turkey, more attention than ever was focused on the Kurdish problem of Turkey.
Until recently, Turkey was even denying to have such a problem as Kurdish. For example, leader of a 1980 military coup, Kenan Evren, in his famous speech, “considered” Kurds not as a separate nation, but “mountain Turks” whose names are coming from the sound of their shoes(“kart-kurt”) while they are walking in the snow. It has not been long before that Turkish government admitted the existence of Kurdish problem. Not long ago, speaking Kurdish was a crime according to the law, and anyone who challenged this law was judged. Therefore, it was sensation when Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Erdogan admitted that there is a Kurdish problem. Until then, this problem was “pronounced” as “southeastern problem” or “southeastern issue”.
Actually, this problem has various subcategories like education in Kurdish, or terror issue. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) is the breakpoint of the Kurdish problem. The dynamics of the events concerning the the problem is an example of its seriousness. On June 1, 2004, PKK declared the termination of the truce. Since then, the number of casualties caused by terrorist acts has increased five times(Guryev, 2008, n.p.). Victims are mainly the civilian population, who are killed by mines laid by militants. In order to neutralize terrorist groups in the area, in May, 2005, Turkish armed forces launched a massive operation, which destroyed more than 100 militants and about 40 troops, as Guryev(2008) writes(n.p).
In such a situation, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, accepted 12 May 2005, that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party leader Abdullah Öcalan was tried unfairly, led to a sharply negative reaction from Turkish government, including the military circles of the country. Their main concern was the fact that the possible revision of Öcalan’s case, may give a rise to huge clashes throughout the country. Furthermore, it led to the increase of already high tension towards the EU. To explain, the European Union’s “apparent silence” towards Italy, Greece, and Germany at the times when these countries “refused to bring Öcalan to the justice” did increase the tension of Turkey and the EU relations(Düzgit, 2006, pp.22-23). Secondly, impacts of the Kurdish problem on Turkey and the European Union are quite influential. On October 3, 2005, with the outbreak of accession negotiations between Turkey and the EU, Turkey’s Kurdish problem gained new shape.
According to Gunter(2006), professor of political science at Tennessee Technological University in Cookeville, Turkey may solve this problem according to the principles of the Copenhagen Criteria, and by doing this she will have met the expectations of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: …Indeed, the way to solve the Kurdish problem in Turkey may prove to be through the Copenhagen Criteria, which mandate the stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and protection of minorities. There is no bargaining on these criteria. Turkey is required to accept them for entry into the EU. For all Turks who want to fulfill Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s ultimate goal of achieving contemporary civilization and for the ethnic Kurds living in Turkey, EU membership for Turkey will be a win/win situation because it would guarantee Kurdish rights within the confines of Turkey’s territorial integrity… n.p
After analyzing the past and the present circumstances around the Kurdish problem, it can be deducted that “the speechs” or views on the Kurdish problem has(had) nothing to do with resolution. Above all, as a “foreigner” in Turkey, I can notice the existing prejudice against Kurds among the citizens. Although these prejudiced people are those with low education, unfortunately, there are quite a lot people with high education and at the same time, with prejudices. I may be argued that, the EU Commission does not make the solving of the Kurdish problem obligatory for Turkey. However, this is the fact that if the EU was to put the Kurdish problem at the front of the negotiations, the consequences, such as unfavorable change of Turkish public opinion towards the union, may affect relations hazardously. Therefore, the EU “considers”(or at least wants to consider) the Kurdish problem “just as terrorism issue at most a limited human rights problem”(Gunter, 2006, n.p). In my opinion, this means that to overcome this obstacle, Turkish government should give great importance to educating people, above all, educating the educators so that they be more tolerant and give more importance to teach tolerance.
Jamil ISLAMOV