The Syrian crisis has turned into a crisis testing Turkey's
attitude towards the Kurdish question and the Kurds. The likelihood of the
Syrian Kurds gaining control of some northern parts of the country and
eventually gaining some sort of autonomy from the center has alarmed the Turks
and the Turkish government alike.
Almost all commentaries published in Turkish media have told the
story with great concern. The prime minister and the minister of foreign
affairs have stated that if it becomes necessary, Turkey will not hesitate to
intervene in Syria. The opposition has started to accuse the government of idly
watching the establishment of a second Kurdish entity on its borders.
Underlying all these reactions is the assumption that developments
in favor of the Kurds in the region constitute a threat to Turkey. It is thus
inferred that Turkey would prefer the Kurds being ruled by dictators like
Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad instead of having a say in their own future.
This is awkward, impossible to justify on any ethical or even
practical ground. It is of course obvious that such an unethical position is
the result of the security concerns of the state. Or, to put more accurately,
it is due to the fact that there are demands from the Kurds of Turkey concerning
their political and cultural rights. Once there is an emergence of a new entity
populated by Kurds that provides the Kurds with more rights and freedoms,
Turkey becomes worried that such improvements may set a “bad example” for its
own Kurds. The well-being of Kurds thus is to be prevented by Turkey.
It is futile to try to build a future on the misfortune of the
Kurds. Besides, in a world of changes towards democracy and self-government, it
is unrealistic to assume that the Kurds will remain under the yoke of this or
that nation or dictator. As the world transforms it is normal that the Kurds,
too, are increasingly gaining their democratic rights and improving their
standard of living.
Therefore this reflex of the government and the public at large of
regarding any improvement in the conditions of the Kurds as automatically
threatening Turkey is not realistic, prudent or right.
Even if there is a zero-sum game between the Turks and the Kurds,
what about the Kurds of Turkey? Which side of the equation are they on?
In this line of thinking, the Turkish public and officials thus
miss a fundamental point that there are Kurds in this country, and these Kurds
enthusiastically welcome developments both in Iraq and Syria through which
their ethnic relatives are likely to be better off politically and economically
as a result.
It is not unnoticed or regarded as unimportant that the official
prevailing view that what is good for the Kurds is bad for the Turks alienates
the Kurds of Turkey from this country. Such an attitude serves to justify the
position of the secessionists Kurds. The Kurds of Turkey tend to think that
they do not have a common bond with the Turks and the Turkish state.
I think it is time to rethink and refute this presumption. And this
requires constructing a new language about the “outside Kurds” who are not
outsiders in fact to our politics and society.
So long as the gains of the Kurds are regarded as the losses of the
Turks there can be no persuasive argument for a common future between the Kurds
of Turkey and the Turks. This is simply because it excludes the Kurds from a
common “us.” If we do not include the Kurds as part of “us” in practice, it is
impossible to tell them that we really want to live together as equal citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment