By Gunduz Aktan
TDN- The Paris Kurdish Institute’s advertisement in the International Herald Tribune and Le Monde on Dec. 8 proclaiming Kurdish demands to the world angered many. Almost everyone said this act was untimely, saying that those who signed it were tricked by people against European Union membership and that the demands were unacceptable.
Liberal commentators concentrated on freedom of expression more than the content of the advertisement. For them, life itself is nothing but enjoying freedoms. How these freedoms are used, which interests they serve, what problems they cause, how they solved or prevented a solution to the problems didn’t matter. Actually, by wasting all their intellectual energy waging a not-so-tiring campaign to broaden freedoms, they had no power left to deal with the problems. Enjoying freedom was enough for them. Freedoms would resolve all the problems by themselves and required no additional effort. Unfortunately, we need to assess the advertisement and understand what it means.
The document itself doesn’t enlighten us about how the signatories represented the Kurdish community, with all its political and cultural disparity.
The Kurds’ “right to live honorably in their motherlands” is not a concept that is clear. If the said motherland is southeast Anatolia, will they leave other Kurds living in the rest of the country to continue to live their lives dishonorably?
The signatories start by saying that the recognition of the existence of the “Kurdish people” will not be enough, and demand collective rights, such as a Kurdish education system, Kurdish media, Kurdish organizations, Kurdish institutions (in other words, state institution) and Kurdish political parties. It is clear that this means autonomy.
The meaning that comes out of defining the Kurds as a nation and demanding the right to make their own decisions, including separation, is that they want an autonomous region. In addition to the demands for autonomy, the concept of “motherland,” demanding a general amnesty for terrorist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK/Kongra-Gel) leader Abdullah Öcalan that could include the PKK becoming a political movement, the return of “3 million Kurds to the region” and the establishment of 3,400 villages, a separate EU economic development program for the region makes it seem that their efforts are directed at establishing a state.
In this context, former Democracy Party (DEP) deputy Leyla Zana and her friends not agreeing to the comparisons made with the Basque region, Catalonia, Scotland and etc. doesn’t matter.
Demanding the rights sought for the Turks in Cyprus for the Kurds in Turkey must have seemed like a very good idea to the signatories; however, the comparison is baseless. The Turkish Cypriots wanted to live together with the Greek Cypriots under the 1960 system. The Greek Cypriots forcefully changed the constitution in 1963 in order to dominate the entire island. For 11 long years they cruelly mistreated the Turks who resisted. After the 1974 intervention, a two-region, two-community model was developed to prevent the Greek Cypriots eliminating the Turks.
On the other hand, the PKK, starting in 1984, waged a 15-year separatist war. This was just the last of the many uprisings that started only 1.5 years after the founding of the republic and resulted in the distrust towards the Kurds. How can one compare the representatives of a group that turned to arms for separation with Turkish Cypriot wish to live side by side with their Greek Cypriot counterparts?
Article 21 of the “International Minority Protection Agreement" does not allow any act against the territorial integrity of the state. At a time when the PKK is moving towards urban terrorism and the signatory Kurds demand rights that go beyond autonomy, even the granting of cultural rights in accordance with the agreement may create certain problems. No one should forget that France refuses to sign the agreement for less convincing reasons.
As stated in the advertisement, there is no doubt that Kurds experienced significant suffering in the 20th century. However, the feeling of victimization does not give one the right to resort to terrorism, constantly accuse the other side or demand whatever comes to one’s mind. This will only aggravate the suffering.