Kurdish question stems from the emergence of nationalism at the end of the Ottoman Empire times. Like Armenians and many other minorities within the empire, Kurdish people wanted their independence too. However, because the Kurds and the Turks were all Muslim and under the umbrella of the caliphate, they strived together for the victory against the Allies for saving the caliphate. However, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed Kurds were divided by the national borders; some of them were in the Iran borders, some of them were in the Iraq borders and some of them were in the newly established Turkish Republic borders. Therefore, the identity of Kurds was fragmented. They were the only ethnic group or nation which did not end up by their nation state and it seemed difficult to have one anymore because they were all scattered around the states. Furthermore, even they supported Independence War against the Allies; Turkish Republic did not recognize them after foundation and established the nation state for only Turks. Moreover, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk also abolished the caliphate in 1924 which was the common ground for Kurds and Turks.  However, Ataturk promoted the motto of ‘Ne mutlu Türk’üm Diyene!’ best translated as ‘Happy is whoever says I am a Turk’ not whoever is a Turk. To be Turk meant to live within the boundaries of the republic and thereby to be its citizen (Radu, 2003). However, Kurds felt betrayed. With the political student movements in the 1960s and the Barzani’s revolt in 1961-1975 in Iraq, Kurdish opposition movement were also able to organize itself with the establishment of PKK in 1974(Roy, 2005).

Kurdish insurgency in Turkey actually gets supports both from the West and Third World countries. The West sees these problems as a matter of oppression or denial of rights by a majority of group, Turks, of an ethnic minority, Kurds. However, when you ask any of Turkish people, they would deny oppression of Kurds. Especially, Turkish elites argue that there is no problem of oppression but socioeconomic problem in the southeastern part of the state where many Kurds inhabit. Many of the elites also believe that terrorist groups within this minority group are strongly supported by the foreign states aiming at weakening Turkey.

In fact, what those people think is not just a conspiracy theory. PKK was always seen as an opportunity by the neighbor states to weaken Turkey. Greece, Syria, The Republic of Cyprus and Iran supported the existence of PKK in Turkey by both supplying them financial aid and also hosting them in their territories. Specifically, the reason for Syria to support PKK was manifold. The first reason; there was a conflict between Turkey and Syria over Hatay after French colonization in the region. Secondly, Güneydoğu Anadolu Projesi (GAP) was a huge project which was planned to use water from Euphrates and Tigris Rivers to irrigate large tracts of the arid region. With this project the Southern part of Turkey was aimed to be developed and increased the amount of harvest even 6 times. However, Syria perceived this as a treat to itself fearing it would affect the amount of water Syria could get from these rivers.  Therefore, it supported both Kurdish terrorist group PKK and Armenian terrorist groups like ASALA against Turkish Republic. Other states generally, like Greece and Iran, did not want to have a strong Turkey just next to them and supported PKK against Turkish Republic. It is doubtful whether PKK could have attained anything close to the position it did without foreign support (Radu, 2005).

We should keep in mind that Kurdish problem in Turkey is distinct from the problem of PKK terrorism. Not every Kurdish people support what PKK does. Only 29% of the Kurdish population viewed PKK as the best representative of Kurdish people. Moreover, majority of Kurdish people want to remain within Turkish state (Milliyet Gazetesi, 1992). Originally, PKK was established based on Marxist- Leninist ideology in 1973 by Abdullah Öcalan. It was to advocate the creation of a Marxist-Kurdish state. PKK agenda described Kurdistan area under a colonial rule and the tribal leaders are the comprador colluded to help the state exploit the lower classes. This Marxist approach was the basic reason for Soviet help to PKK during Cold War. However, in 1990s we see a shift in PKK politics from Marxist to nationalist. This is basically because the region people were not interested in ideologies and were wary of them. Nationalism, on the other hand, was familiar to them and in accordance with their actual aim: independent Kurdish State. Therefore, with nationalist approach PKK was able to attract more people from Kurdish grassroots.

Even Kurdish minority is a hot topic in Turkish politics; Turkey is neither a bipolar nor a deeply divided society like Rwanda or Sri Lanka. Open tensions in society between Turks and Kurds remain minimal. Kurdish people is the most populous minority in Turkey and they are the only one Ataturk’s nation building did not succeed. There is irrefutable ethnic aspect but the core in Kurdish problem is oft-neglected social, economic, political and ideological dimensions, which makes it different from ethnic conflicts in Kosovo, Chechnya, Rwanda and Liberia too. The Kurdish areas have consistently lagged behind the rest of Turkey in terms of economic development due largely to the preservation of the tribal structures and the neglect of central government. Tribal leaders of course have an interest in preventing rapid modernization which would inevitably weaken the traditional social structures that perpetuate their power. As a result, they have in all likelihood encouraged a certain lack of attention to their region on the part of central authorities (p.130, Radu, 2005).  This lack of state investment later caused lack of education, infrastructure and resulted in underdevelopment in the region, which will eventually cause emergence of terrorist groups in the name of ‘freedom fighter’. Basically, the reason for this underdevelopment in the region is seen as an economic racism done by the government against Kurdish people and a ground for the rebellion.

With the coup d’état in 1980 in Turkey, government’s approach toward PKK and Kurdish people had an extreme condition. There was more repressive and ignorant approach. Military government leader Evren even rejected the existence of the Kurdish and said there is nothing like Kurds but a sound when you walk on the snow similar to ‘Kurd’ sound and the people who name themselves as Kurds are the people who lived in snowy places most of the time and got this nickname. This became a government policy and many generations grew up assuming that Kurdish people actually belonged to Turkish origins but somehow they were rebellion (Radikal Gazetesi, 2007). By this way Kurdish people compelled either to be a member of PKK to have a voice or either got assimilated in Turkish culture. Any peaceful advocacy of Kurdish rights would attract the wrath of both the state and the PKK (Radu, 2005).

Turkey lost so much energy on this issue. The allocation of military spending is even higher than national education spending. Turkey wants to be an EU member and a strong state in the region. Some negotiations between EU and Turkey were just about minority problems in Turkey. It is essential to solve this issue by peaceful manners and please the Kurdish people without preventing Turkey from being a strong state. This ‘Kurdish Problem’ hunch is always emerging especially in critical times, like EU negotiations. This Kurd-Turk distinction is so unnecessary and damaging Turkey’s developmental state aims.

Solutions to this conflict lie in the democratization process. Turkish government should abolish any law restricting cultural rights .However; Ankara still sometimes refrains from letting Kurdish legal and political representation. It perceives them as a menace to national security and as a separatist terrorism. However, it is known by experience in the past that preventing them participating from politics is much more destructive. Additionally, some scholars argue that government should allow education in the mother language for the Kurds claiming it will enable them to learn their identity and be a part of the society at the same time. However, government is afraid of that it may cause a fragmentation in the society and secession of the state. That seems reasonable because by this way you may create a society even cannot speak the same language. Turkish government right now does not recognize any diploma taught in any ethnic language but allows opening Kurdish courses and Kurdish departments in the universities.

Furthermore, the Southeastern part of Turkey needs to be developed by being industrialized. However, government should pay attention to the distribution of wealth over there because in the past the gain was just for the landlord but not the peasants. Actually over the years, governors and NGOs try to resolve this issue by implementing new projects in the region. ’Kardelen’ project, for example, was aiming bringing girls to the school in the region and was quite successful.

Populated mostly by Kurdish people the Southeastern part of Turley has been witnessing state-oriented investments nowadays. Most recently, Kurdish people have a state-controlled TV channel which is broadcasting in Kurdish. Even some universities are arguing opening a department of Kurdish language and literature and they are allowed to do so by the law anymore. Other than cultural investments, state tries to make the region more attractive to the private investment by lowering the tax here. It is believed that if the unemployment rates decrease, there would be less people who will be willing to a part of PKK. These progresses are more than welcome by the Kurdish society. Turkish people are also hopeful that maybe these new rights and developments will satisfy the Kurds and this conflict will reach to an end. Neither Kurdish mother nor Turkish mother wants to sacrifice their sons in the battle for this endless conflict anymore.  Turkey has won the war against PKK in 1999 and right now it needs to win the peace (Radu, 2005).

Melike Baştürk

References

1. Berkan, I. (2007). The Problem of Terror and Kurds. Radikal Newspaper. (6^th of November)

2. Roy O., the editor (2005). Turkey Today: A European Country?.

3. Radu S. Michael, the editor (2003). Dangerous Neighborhood: Contemporary Issues in Turkey’s Foreign Relations. The Kurdish Question in Turkish Politics by Svante E. Cornell, 126-140.

4. The Survey Results Published in Milliyet Newspaper, 6^th September 1992.

Copyright protected by Digiprove © 2012

Kurdish question can be explained by referring to the transformation of Turkey from a traditional society where the identities were religiously determined at communal level, to a modern society where the aim was to define an individual’s identity at the state level and the driving force behind this nationalism was Turkish nationalism.[1]

The nation has been defined on the bases of three different concepts throughout Turkish history which was “God” under the Ottoman Empire.  In Ottoman society the nationality was on the bases of religion which means that a person’s membership to a religious community was the determining element of nationality. In this sense, many Turks had little or no self awareness. The Ottoman Empire as an authoritarian monarchy with a religious foundation derived from Sultan’s claim that he was also caliph of the world, the spiritual head of the all Muslims of the world so it recognized minorities by defining them in religious terms and gave them extensive self-rule.[2] Both the logic of emperorship and that of Islam exceeded the logic of the nation in Ottoman.

Alongside the newborn nation states, the real inheritor of the Ottoman Empire has become a nation state that is Turkey and under huge efforts for nation building in Turkey, religion  gave its place to ‘nation’ where secularism got the upper hand over God.

In fact the transformation from Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic can be described as a transfer from “Ottoman patriotism” to “Turkish nationalism”. As the Ottoman Empire was disintegrating, the need to build a new order came to agenda. The population of Turkey would need a new identity which would replace the one based on religion and from 1923 onwards  Turkish nationalism came to agenda. This meant a break with the monarchy of the past, with the Islamic character of the state. The founders of the Turkish Republic had the aim of transforming Ottoman Empire to a modern and secular republic and in line with this aim from 1923 an increasing emphasis was given to developing a sense of nationhood based on the Turkish language in contrast to Ottoman Empire where ethnic identities  among the Muslim population had no much significance beyond the cultural and the linguistic.[3]

This notion of nationality continued until the the beginning of 2000s where greater commitment to EU membership opened the way for some political reforms  and increased the hopes for some solution to the Kurdish problem. For countries like Turkey where the real changes can not come from the bottom which is not conscious and enlightened enough to question and bring the change, a catalyser is needed to make people come around a common idea. In Turkish case, The EU acted as a crucial catalyst for some reforms to be brought into life as a civilian power which used carrots as against to sticks. Not the EU itself but the “idea of EU membership” has been the motivator for Turkey’s democratization or the so-called Europeanization process which includes reforms on human rights, plural democracy and minority issue. At the base of these reforms lies the idea to define “human” as the defining element of identity in Turkey which unfortunately was stuck today due to both internal and external dynamics as well as lack of real commitment of governments to the solution of the problem due to their short-visioned electoral concerns.

Shortly, much rests on how successful the governments are in implementing social/ political reforms and opinion makers are in shaping the society’s perception of the issue. Otherwise Turkish hardliners and Kurdish nationalists will come to the scene which means return to the very beginning. In this sense, Turkey by playing the game according to rules of 21^st century, being conscious diplomatic player in international arena instead of taking the role of East’s emotional and courageous rescuer should be very cautious and strong inside. Now is the time for promoting the idea of Turkey’s patriotism where “individual” is valuable just because of his/her existence, neither of religious nor ethnic origins.

Diğdem TÜMTÜRK

[2] Svante E. Cornell , ‘The Kurdish Question in Turkish Politics’, Orbis, 45, 1 (Winter 2001), p.32.

[3] Kirişçi, op.cit., p.280.

We didn’t know that the Middle East, which is in fact, too close to us, is far and the place called the Far East is far away to us.

The colonialist West mentality-West doesn’t express a geographical meaning here-, began to decide the name of the places since it got the region, called East, under its thumb. We didn’t know that our southern neighbors were placing at the middle of the East or Cyprus was in somewhere that was near to Europe. It seems like that a line had been drawn beyond Greece; the left side is western, modern and civilized. The rest? Go to the Hell! Eastern, dirty, wild, uncivilized and Muslims.

The “Apartheid” is made for once: “We” and “they”.

East is always thought in terms of the necessities of Europe. After once The West chose the East as the target point, it created new concepts and new ideas: East and Eastern, Arab, Muslim, Indian, Chinese, terrorist and many others. All these had been refreshed in every era and while sometimes Jesus was being used as the supporter of West and Europe concepts, then concepts of human rights and democracy were emphasized by Westerns. Did people were killed, where? In United States, sir. The individual is the most magnanimous creature and in 21st century, human violations should be prevented. What about the events in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Palestine? They are not human. Because they don’t understand anything from democracy and modernism. But, sir! They are living on the oil, what will happen? Yes, they don’t know these concepts, but somebody should teach to them!

You know after what happened: One million people have died in Iraq; civilians were killed in Afghanistan “accidentally”. It’s ok, no problem. According to Westerns, these people died for the sake of democracy.

This is the Western mind… Poor Democracy Martyrs!

The western man, who scorns us: According to us this is a duty for humanity. We don’t want deaths of children and we don’t want discrimination of women. Everybody should be able to use their basic human rights. Human rights are universal…then a smile comes…but they are for the humans. In other words for those, who we think as humans. The rest is only a pretext. Democracy is a pretext. Civilization is a pretext. The magnificent thing is imperialism. What is magnificent is the money that comes from the oil. What is the magnificent is the maintenance of the West hegemony. What understands the man, who sits in London, in New York, in Paris, in a Starbucks Café and drinks his coffee while reading his newspaper, from the conditions of a woman that lives in Camp of Satilla in poverty, of a human whose home is collapsed by Israel in Gaza or of a man who lost his child in civil war in Iraq.

The idea that is based on the imaginary geographies such as “our country” and “their country” doesn’t need the latter to believe this difference. What is important is creation of this difference in the side, which uses the word of “us”. After this difference is created once, the other side takes the name of “they” with all its lands, languages and thoughts and the other side becomes alienated to “us”.

We are Easters. The role, which is given to us, is this.

Vive la petrol!
Vive la democracy!
Vive la civilization!

Nail ELHAN

Today, roughly half of the population is female. Despite this mass and much of the world economy driven by women, they have just 10% of the world’s income. The gender gap became clearer especially after World Economic Forum 2010 released its worldwide report results. According to Global Gender Gap Index, Iceland is the country where there is the smallest gender gap and Yemen is the biggest. While US is the 31st, Turkey is the 129th out of 134 country (Switzerland, 2010).

To begin with, gender equality is a really complex phenomenon; therefore what exactly ‘equality’ means needs to be answered .It does not necessarily mean always fifty-fifty, rather it is giving the right to women to do whatever they want:work outside home, study at school or even stay at home. What is indispensable is civil justice that guarantees woman rights. Respected and protected rights, economical and political participation, sanitation, education and being free from violence bring along woman emancipation. Unfortunately, one of the major problems that women get face to face is usually lack of opportunity to fulfill their objectives. Statistics about women participation in business is important; because it gives us whether they are given the same opportunity to participate in as much as men or not. Majority of female population wants to be involved in business arena, if they are endowed. However, according to the some, attempts to achieve equality between men and women often result in tokenism, which means a symbolic gesture.

Does equality means women at work or just fundamental respect for woman in the society? The answer is both of them. It is essential to change the way people behave against women especially in their basic units of society, which is in fact home. By dealing with literacy and neglect, it is achievable to reach respect for women. Educated women have more chance to be a part of the economic life; because, economic sufficiency brings in dignity in the society. Those women who are capable of affording their needs are less inclined to be under pressure on their own situations and political decisions. Therefore, respect for women in the society and economic, political participation go hand-in-hand.

Since women are replete with different talents and capabilities, unemployed women are waste of talents. Whether you see women as potential consumers or potential talent pool, you need to see them as a work pool in the end. They needs to be brought to the market, which is an economic imperative. It is another question that whether women behave in a more responsible or a less risky way. It is a natural faith that women are better to put themselves in their customers’ shoes and their employers’ shoes. Furthermore; greater balance, greater representation of experiences and differences of talents lead to better production in the end, actually it is what we should strive for.

British businesswoman Nichola Pease recently told a UK parliamentary committee that some employers believe hiring women is ‘a nightmare’ because of maternity leave and fears of discrimination action. It is true that maternity leave is a burden for small entrepreneurs, but the cost is relatively less for the big ones. When we think about 30 years of business life and approximately one or two children per woman, two or three months of maternity leave should not be a concern of any employers. It is necessary to consider about woman’s contribution to the business first. And also, in the changing world,paternity leave is also encountered any more .

Melike BAŞTÜRK