The “National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy Commission” formed by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey has finally published its long-awaited report after six months of work. The report is now being widely discussed. Articles are being written about it, statements are being made, panels are being organized. It appears that the current debate will continue for some time.
When looked at as a whole, the report appears to be quite well organized. Its Turkish is very proper and easily understood. Frankly, it contains a considerable amount of information. So to speak, it is also flexible, almost like rubber, it can be pulled in any direction. In that case, the rest is up to those who will work on the report. Based on it, one could either deny the Kurds or develop a democratic political solution to the Kurdish question.
According to the report presented to Parliament and the public, Turkey has experienced “terror” for the past century, most recently under the name PKK for the last 50 years. In other words, Turkey has continuously experienced internal conflict. This situation has caused Turkey great losses and dragged it from crisis to crisis. Upon reading the report, one understands this very well. Of course, the stated terror is always attributed to the Kurds and the PKK. However, since terror, conflict, and war cannot be one-sided, it also becomes clear that the state itself has been engaged in terror, conflict, and war for a century.
A more significant and striking piece of information in the report is this: since August 15, 1984, the state’s annual spending on the conflict has ranged between 140 and 240 billion dollars. Apparently finding these figures too high, the author of the report concludes by saying “100 billion dollars are spent each year.” There is no justification for this reduction, so the initial figures should be considered accurate. Accordingly, over the 41-year war with the PKK since 1984, the Turkish state has spent between 6 and 10 trillion dollars. These are clearly stated, almost as a confession, by the Parliamentary Commission.
Let us restate these two points. The Republic of Turkey has lived in a state of war — called “terror” — for the past century. Over the last 41 years, it has spent between 6 and 10 trillion dollars on this war. The report finds this expenditure extremely heavy and therefore curses the “terror” that led to it. In other words, it presents the consequences in a striking manner but, for some reason, never asks or questions the causes behind them. In a simplistic way, it prefers to blame terror and leave it at that.
So what is the cause or causes that have kept Turkey at war for a century and led to expenditures of 6–10 trillion dollars in the last 41 years? The report does not clearly ask this question but, within its framework, presents terror as the cause. However, terror is a result, not a cause. And it is not one-sided; if some applied terror against the state, surely the state did not stand idle and applied terror extensively as well. The report both conceals the terror practiced by the state and hides the cause behind it. Therefore, it contains no approach of self-criticism and persistently avoids confronting the past.
Perhaps for this reason, it never even mentions what is called the “Kurdish question.” It completely conceals the “denial of the Kurds” that created this issue. As if the Kurds simply got angry and took up arms for a century! In fact, it does not explicitly say that the violence it calls terror was carried out by Kurds, but by naming organizations like the PKK, it essentially implies Kurds. As we said, the report has truly been prepared very skillfully and cunningly.
Yet for 900 of the thousand years of shared history, the Kurds did nothing harmful to the Turks; on the contrary, they consistently offered help and support. The report briefly summarizes this history. However, when it says terror was practiced in the last century, it provides little explanation as to why. At times, it mentions the schemes and provocations of foreign powers. Curiously, in this narrative, it is always the Kurds who are targeted by such foreign plots, while Turks — who conduct relations with world states daily — never seem to encounter such things.
Let us summarize the more-than-century-long period that the report does not address. As is known, the National Pact (Misak-ı Milli) led by Mustafa Kemal defined the homeland as “the lands inhabited by Turks and Kurds.” The Sivas and Erzurum Congresses that gave life to the National Pact were meetings in which Kurds participated predominantly. In the formation and early work of the Grand National Assembly opened on April 23, 1920, deputies from Kurdistan were among the most active. The most effective resistance against French and British occupation was carried out by Kurds. During the Greek occupation, it was Diyap Ağa, deputy of Dersim, who ensured that the Assembly remained in Ankara and resisted. During this period, Mustafa Kemal mentioned Kurds and even “granting autonomy to the Kurds” several times.
As can be seen, between 1919 and 1924 there was no situation in which Kurds opposed Turks or practiced terror. So when does the terror most frequently mentioned in the Commission’s report begin? It is well known: from 1925 onward. Why did this happen? Clearly, the second constitution prepared in 1924 denied the Kurds and thereby paved the way for state attacks against them. The Kurdish resistance labeled as terror emerged in order to defend themselves against this denial and the annihilation-oriented attacks that developed on that basis. From 1924, the state’s century-long denial of the Kurds has kept Turkey in a century of conflict and war.
So what needs to be done? Clearly, the century-long terror that occurred must of course be condemned, but alongside that, the state mentality and policy that denied Kurdish existence and led to this terror must also be condemned and changed. In other words, it is necessary to recognize that the Kurds are a distinct people. Accordingly, the national-democratic rights of the Kurdish people must also be recognized.
In fact, the Commission’s report does acknowledge that the Kurds are a distinct people. It writes: “Turks and Kurds are brother and sister peoples, sharing a common fate.” In this sentence, it openly accepts that Kurds are a people separate from Turks. However, as noted above, it is written so skillfully that while expressing the existence of a separate Kurdish people in this way, it simultaneously conceals this on a general level and continues to deny Kurdish existence.
Undoubtedly, such cunning must now come to an end. If there is indeed a Kurdish people, and if they are no longer to be denied as they have been for a century, then their cultural and democratic rights must also be recognized. The report should sufficiently address what needs to be done accordingly. Kurdish identity must be recognized in every sphere, including at the constitutional level; education in the Kurdish mother tongue must be provided; all bans on the development of Kurdish language and culture must be lifted, and the way for their free development must be opened.
As can be seen, the Commission’s report says nothing about these matters. Nor is there any change in practical implementation. This amounts to a continued, albeit covert, effort to sustain a century of denial. For this reason, past events are repeatedly reheated and put forward by various circles. Although the armed struggle has been ended by congress decision, absurd statements such as “Let the PKK lay down its arms, disband, and everyone go home” continue to be voiced. All of these are current expressions of the insistence on denying Kurdish existence. Clearly, the Kurds are now conscious and vigilant. It is no longer possible to deceive or suppress them. Everyone should come to their senses and avoid causing further unnecessary loss of time.
Source: Yeni Özgür Politika
Leave a Reply