Turkish forces have been fighting the Kurds, a significant ethnic and cultural group in the country as well as in the surrounding region, for decades dating back to 1978. This region is often referred to as the territory of Kurdistan or Greater Kurdistan, “Homeland of the Kurds.” The use of this term refers to the area where the Kurdish people are the majority population. Using terms associated with modern borders of existing nation states, this region is composed of the eastern and southeastern parts of Turkey, northern Syria, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran.
Distinct from the Kurds in Turkey and in Iran, the Kurdish population in Iraq had become an autonomous entity within the federal Iraqi republic in 2005 (Iraqi Constitution, Article 113), but had achieved autonomous status several decades ago, dating back to 1970 (the Iraqi-Kurdish Autonomy Agreement of 1970). More recently, due to the lack of security and stability in Syria resulting from the Syrian Civil War, the Kurdish population was in a position to assume authority in northern Syria. In November 2013, a Kurdish regional government was established and subsequently declared autonomy. The Kurdish situation in Iran, however, is inherently complex, and will not be discussed in detail here. Much needs to be said regarding the Iranian-Kurdish conflict — perhaps a discussion to be had in future writings.
In Turkey, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey is the only legislative institution, as specified in Turkey’s constitution that was approved in a national referendum in 1982 following the removal of the Senate. Among the many elected members of Parliament is the People’s Democratic Party (HDP), a pro-Kurdish political party that aims to achieve minority rights and equality for all the Turkish population. More specifically, it aims to end religious, gender and racial discrimination. Bringing positive fundamental change to the Turkish-Kurdish relationship is among these broad goals.
The origins of the conflict
The Turkish-Kurdish conflict, more formally known as the Turkey-Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) conflict, consists of an armed Kurdish insurgent group fighting for greater autonomy and greater political and cultural rights inside Turkey. Near the end of 2012, Turkey and the PKK began peace negotiations aimed at resolving the conflict that resulted in an estimated 40,000 casualties as well as immense economic loses for the government. More recently, the 2015 conflict broke out following two year-long peace negotiations, which began near the end of 2012 — but failed to progress.
The Turkish government, like any other nation state, reserves the right to defend itself and its people from violence and militancy. However, at the same time, the state has a responsibility to govern in such a way that does not increase political instability and further disestablishment of security. This is where the Turkish government appears to falls short.
During the most recent election campaign for the November 2015 general election, Recep Tyyip Erdogan (Turkey’s current president) and his former Justice and Development Party (AKP) campaigned with the goal of achieving two thirds representation in parliament in order to bring forth a new presidential system. After the Elections, AKP PM Ahmet Davutoglu declared that the government’s priority is to amend the constitution and establish a new presidential system. As time has passed since this divisive election campaign launched by Erdogan and the AKP, the repercussions of this newly established priority has become increasingly apparent. In the end, at the expense of the Kurdish minority and increasing social division in the nation, the AKP failed to capture two thirds of the parliament to move forward with Erdogan’s plan to overhaul Turkey’s presidential system.
Just months earlier in the previous election (June 2015), the AKP failed to capture a majority in the parliament for the first time, largely due to its loss of the nationalist vote and the rise in support for the pro-Kurdish HDP political party. The AKP could not reach consensus with any political parties to form a coalition, resulting in the November 2015 election call. This time around, it seems that Erdogan and the AKP opted to demonize the HDP and its supporters in an attempt to not only regain a majority, but to reach the two thirds threshold needed for a transformation in presidential systems. To attain this goal, Erdogan and the AKP tried to use fear strategically in order to strengthen its nationalist vote by unreservedly accusing the HDP of acting with, and supporting the PKK in its terrorist activities. However, the pro-Kurdish HDP is known to be fundamentally opposed to violence and is focused on working towards a peaceful solution for Turkish Kurds.
Can the Kurds achieve liberation peacefully?
For the millions of Kurdish people who seek peaceful and legitimate means for positive change in Kurdish rights through parliamentary representation of elected HDP members, this behavior from the governing AKP was viewed as simply unacceptable and hostile. This, in time, will widely be seen as Erdogan’s and the AKP’s enormous error in judgement that ultimately pushed Turkey into what now appears to be an irreparable situation with the Kurdish minority. Increasing obstacles to peaceful and legitimate avenues for a solution to the Kurdish problem will only encourage the Kurdish minority to seek other approaches for achieving their rights. It should not be surprising to anyone that after decades of frustration, and now the delegitimization of their political party by the governing AKP, Kurdish unrest within the country will likely increase. As seen time and time again, this will only lead to retaliation from both sides of the conflict, resulting in many more civilian causalities.
Turkey has a long history of discrimination and injustices committed against the Kurdish people. The situation in southeast Turkey (the Kurdish region of Turkey) has, at times, been characterized as cultural genocide. The Turkish government’s consistent failure and unwillingness to guarantee basic cultural, political, and language rights to the Kurdish minority is ultimately contributing Turkey’s rapidly deteriorating security situation. Over a decade has passed since the European Commission, as part of the Turkey 2006 Progress Report, concluded:
Overall Turkey made little progress on ensuring cultural diversity and promoting respect for and protection of minorities in accordance with international standards.
In fact, the report goes further with recommendations specific to the Kurdish minority:
A comprehensive strategy should be pursued, to achieve the socio-economic development of the (southeast) region and the establishment of conditions for the Kurdish population to enjoy full rights and freedoms.
The situation in the Southeast has largely been neglected by then PM Erdogan, and this continues to be the case a decade later under the premiership of Davutoglu. What is further problematic is the lack of dialogue between locally elected politicians in the region and Turkey’s governing AKP. Many of these politicians face criminal investigations, court cases and prosecution for a variety of charges.
Recently, Selahattin Demirtas, one of the co-leaders of the country’s pro-Kurdish HDP political party, is facing a criminal investigation on several charges including humiliating the Turkish people, insulting the president, and producing propaganda for a terrorist organisation. As the new year has come to pass, Turkish security forces have raided an HDP office in Istanbul, detaining six officials in early January 2016. Yet, astonishingly, Erdogan maintains:
Turkey does not have a Kurdish problem, but only a terrorism problem.
The unfortunate truth is, a progressive stance on the Kurdish problem would not win Erdogan and the AKP enough Kurdish support to counterbalance the levels of Turkish nationalist support that would be lost in the process. Thus, compromising his majority in the Grand National Assembly appears to remain the primary contributing factor of the AKP’s unwillingness to acknowledge the problem and move forward with Kurdish rights. Until Erdogan and the ruling AKP decide to put Kurdish rights on the forefront of their political agenda and is willing to compromise a portion of its nationalist support, the Kurdish problem will inevitably persist and worsen. Potentially pushing modern Turkey into a conflict of unprecedented political and security repercussions that would hinder Turkey’s prosperity for years to come.
Reprinted with permission from Medium.
Image: Creative Commons
You have a bold title “Origins of the conflict” yet you start in 2012? You need to go further, much further. Over a hundred years further. You “journalists” today are so concerned about walking on eggshells that you avoid true reporting. Why was the PKK created? How have Kurds been treated in that country for decades and centuries? I understand why journalists in Turkey can’t be honest but what’s your excuse? Stop using Turkish propaganda and labels. This is not a Kurdish problem but rather Kurdish oppression and a Turkish problem.
This is a generally accurate discussion of the problem but there are some error that need clarifying. Firstly, it is not true that “the pro-Kurdish HDP is known to be fundamentally opposed to violence and is focused on working towards a peaceful solution for Turkish Kurds.” The HDP has stubbornly refused to condemn PKK terrorism and its MPs who are members of the HDP pay visits to the families of killed militants to give their condolences. The most recent and scandalous example is Tugba Hezer’s visit to Abdulbaki Somer’s family after the suicide bomb attack in Ankara but by no means is that an isolated case.
Erdogan’s official statement to the effect that “Turkey does not have a Kurdish problem, but only a terrorism problem” is aimed at protecting Kurds who are not PKK sympathisers. Once the problem is officially classified as a Kurdish problem, people will call on the government to start evicting the Kurds from Turkey. If Kurdish unrest continues, as predicted by the author, then the only remaining solution is to get rid of the Kurds.
It is correct that further concessions to Kurdish extortion would hurt the government’s standing with the public but in a democratic country, it is only natural that a serving government should defend the interests of the silent majority against a violent minority that is blowing up police cars, murdering troops, refusing to pay taxes or even electricity bills. Turks, it so happens, are not errand boys for the Kurds. There is so little of Turkey left after the Balkan War and the Great War that there is no possibility of humouring violent, ugly and greedy Kurds who have nothing to offer in exchange for what they are demanding.