Tweet
NOAM CHOMSKY DISCUSSES TURKEY WITH DAVID BARSAMIAN
by David Barsamian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/02/09/chomsky/#comments
February 9, 2012
David Barsamian, the director of Colorado-based Alternative Radio,
conducted the following interview with Noam Chomsky on Jan. 20 at
MIT in Cambridge, Mass.
Noam Chomsky Chomsky is the internationally renowned Institute
Professor Emeritus at MIT. In addition to his pioneering work in
linguistics, he has been a leading voice for peace and social justice
for many decades. "The New Statesman" calls him "the conscience of
the American people."
Howard Zinn described him as "the nation's most distinguished
intellectual rebel." He's the author of scores of books including
Failed States, What We Say Goes, and Hopes and Prospects.
Chomsky and David Barsamian have collaborated on a series of
best-selling books.
Their latest is How the World Works. This interview will be part of
Demand the Impossible, to be published later this year.
The Armenian Weekly thanks David Barsamian for providing a transcript
of the interview.
***
D.B.: Let's talk about Turkey. The country for a number of years
strove to get into the European Union, and did not succeed. There's
a front-page New York Times article [Jan. 5, 2012] entitled "Turkey's
Glow Dims as Press Faces Charges." Turkish human rights advocates say
that there's been a "crackdown" on journalists that "is part of an
ominous trend." Further, it says, "The arrests threaten to darken the
image of the prime minister, Erdogan, who is lionized in the Middle
East as a powerful regional leader who can stand up to Israel and
the West." According to this report, "There are now 97 members of
the news media in jail in Turkey, including journalists, publishers,
and distributors," a figure that human "rights groups say exceeds the
number detained in China." One of those imprisoned is Nadim Sener,
an award-winning journalist, for his reporting on the murder of Hrant
Dink, a prominent Turkish-Armenian journalist who was assassinated
in Istanbul in January 2007.
N.C.: First of all, that this report should appear in the New York
Times has ample ironic connotations. What's going on in Turkey is
pretty bad. On the other hand, it doesn't begin to compare with what
was going on in the 1990's. The Turkish state was carrying out a major
terrorist war against the Kurdish population: tens of thousands of
people killed, thousands of towns and villages destroyed, probably
millions of refugees, torture, every kind of atrocity you can think
of. The Times barely reported it.
They certainly didn't report-or if they did, it was very marginal-the
fact that 80 percent of the weapons were coming from the U.S., and that
Clinton was so supportive of the atrocities that in 1997, kind of when
they were peaking, that single year Clinton sent more arms to Turkey
than in the entire Cold War period combined up until the onset of the
counterinsurgency campaign. That's pretty serious. You won't find it
in the New York Times. Their correspondent in Ankara, Stephen Kinzer,
barely reported anything. Not that he didn't know. Everybody knew.
David Barsamian So now if they're upset about human rights violations,
we can take the reaction with a grain of salt. Now they are willing to
highlight the human rights violations because it's not the U.S. that's
backing them, it's a country that's been standing up to the U.S. And
that they don't like. Erdogan's popularity in the Middle East does
not make him popular in the U.S. He's by far the most popular figure
in the Arab world, whereas Obama's popularity is actually lower than
Bush's, which is quite a trick.
Turkey has taken a fairly independent role in world affairs, which
the U.S. doesn't like at all. They've maintained trade relations with
Iran-in fact, are even increasing them. Turkey and Brazil carried
out a major crime. They succeeded in getting Iran to agree to a
program of transferring the low-enriched uranium out of Iran, which
happened to virtually duplicate Obama's program. In fact, Obama had
actually written a letter to Lula, the Brazilian president, urging
him to proceed with this, mainly because Washington assumed that
Iran would never agree, and then they could use it as a diplomatic
weapon against them and have more support for sanctions. But they
did agree. There was great anger here that they got Iran to agree,
because then that might undermine the push for sanctions, which is
what they really were after. So that was another source of hostility.
And there are others. For example, in the case of Libya, Turkey,
which is a NATO power, interfered with NATO's early efforts to carry
out the bombing of Libya, effectively overriding the UN resolution,
though they claimed they were observing it. Turkey was by no means
cooperative; in fact, they actually blocked NATO meetings. Washington
didn't like that either.
They don't like the increasing trade relations with Iran, they don't
like their independent foreign policy. So given that situation, it's
appropriate to condemn human rights violations in Turkey, which are
there. There's been regression. Actually, there was a lot of progress
over the past 10 years, quite considerable progress, but the last
couple of years have been pretty unpleasant. It's correct to protest
them, cynicism aside.
D.B.: In March 2011, Orhan Pamuk, a leading Turkish writer, Nobel
Prize winner, was fined for his statement in a Swiss newspaper that
"We have killed 30,000 Kurds and 1 million Armenians." Hardly any
discussion of Turkey can take place without mention of at least the
Kurds, and sometimes of the Armenians.
N.C.: Actually, the Kurds are rarely discussed. The worst atrocities
against the Kurds, as I mentioned, were in the 1990's. And then the
press coverage was very slight and dismissive. I actually ran through
it once. There were a couple of things, but not a lot. That, of course,
was the most significant period, not just because of the scale of the
atrocities but because we could have stopped them. They were being
supported strongly by the U.S., and NATO generally, the U.S. in the
lead. If that had been made public, it could have had an effect.
It was particularly striking in 1999. There was a NATO conference, an
anniversary, in 1999, that was right around the time of the decision
to bomb Serbia. There was plenty of coverage in the West about how
NATO was lamenting the fact that atrocities are being carried out so
close to the NATO world, so we have to do something about it, like
bomb Serbia. Actually, much worse atrocities were being carried out
within NATO, namely, in Turkey. But try to find a word about that. You
can find a word. I wrote about it, a couple of other mavericks wrote
about it. So the cynicism is overwhelming.
But putting that aside, the problems are real. I was in Turkey a
year ago at a conference on freedom of speech. A large part of it
was devoted to the Turkish journalists speaking, describing their own
activities in trying to write about, expose the Hrant Dink murder, the
atrocity against the Armenians, the repression of the Kurds. These are
very courageous people. It's not like a New York Times correspondent,
who could write about it if he wanted and nothing would happen. Maybe
he would be censured by the editors. These guys can get sent to jail,
undergo torture. That's serious. But they talk openly and strikingly.
In fact, one of the most interesting things about Turkey-here, again,
is an irony-the European Union says, "We can't invite them in because
they don't meet our high standards of human rights," and so on. Turkey
is about the only country I know of in which leading intellectuals,
journalists, academics, writers, professors, and publishers not only
constantly protest the atrocities of the state but regularly carry out
civil disobedience against it. I actually participated to an extent
10 years ago when I went there. There's nothing like that in the West.
They put their Western counterparts to shame. So if there are lessons
to be learned, I think it's in the other direction. Frankly, I never
thought that Turkey would be admitted into the EU, mainly on racist
grounds. I don't think Western Europeans like the idea of Turks
walking around freely in their streets.
D.B.: How do Turkish-Israeli relations have an influence Washington,
with the 2010 Israeli commando raid in international waters on a
Turkish ship killing nine Turks, one of whom was an American citizen?
And now there has been a suspension of diplomatic relations.
N.C.: It started before that. Turkey was the only major country,
certainly the only NATO country, to have protested very sharply against
the U.S.-Israeli attack on Gaza in 2008-09. And it was a U.S.-Israeli
attack. Israel dropped the bombs, but the U.S. backed it, blocked
the UN resolution, and so on, including Obama. Turkey came out very
strongly in condemnation. There was a famous incident in Davos at
the World Economic Forum where the Turkish prime minister spoke out
strongly against the attack while Shimon Peres, the Israeli president,
was on stage with him.
In general, they stood out for their protest-one reason why Erdogan
is so popular in the Arab world. Of course, the U.S. didn't like that.
Having cordial relations with Iran and condemning Israeli crimes does
not make you a favored figure in Georgetown cocktail parties.
D.B.: And now there's a report that Israel, which has long been
denying the Armenian Genocide, is considering a resolution, primarily
to irritate the Turks now, who they know are hypersensitive to any
mention of the Armenian Genocide.
N.C.: It cuts both ways. Israel and Turkey were pretty close allies.
In fact, Turkey was the closest ally of Israel, apart from the U.S.
Their alliance was kept kind of under cover, but it was perfectly
open, from the late 1950's. It was very important for Israel to have
a powerful non-Arab state allied to it. Turkey and Iran under the
Shah were very close to Israel. At that time they refused to allow
any discussion of the Armenian Genocide.
In 1982, Israel had a Holocaust conference. It was organized by a
Holocaust specialist in Israel, Israel Charny, somebody I knew as a
kid in Hebrew-speaking camps. He went to Israel. He organized it. He
wanted to invite someone to talk about the Armenian atrocities, and
the government tried to block it, strongly opposed it. In fact, they
pressured Elie Wiesel, who was supposed to be the honorary chair,
to resign, which he did. They went ahead with it anyway. It was
over strong government opposition. At that time Turkey was an ally,
so you don't talk about it.
Now, as you say, relations are frayed, so you can sort of stick it
to the Turks, you can talk about it now. In fact, Israel's behavior
has been pretty remarkable. One of the incidents that didn't get
much publicity here but really bothered the Turks was a meeting
between the Turkish ambassador to Israel and Danny Ayalon, the deputy
foreign minister. He called in the Turkish ambassador and they set up
a photo op with the Turkish ambassador sitting on a very low chair and
Ayalon sitting on a higher chair above him. And then the photographs
are publicized all over. Countries don't act like that. It's very
humiliating. The Turks didn't like it a bit. Israel is so arrogant,
they didn't care. They figure, we can do anything we like so long as
the master is behind us, which he is.
That's one of a series of events which actually, from Israel's own
strategic point of view, is not very brilliant. The Turkish-Israeli
military strategic relationship, trade relationship, commercial
relationship is pretty significant. Again, we don't really know the
details, but for years Israel has been using eastern Turkey, as the
U.S. has, for military bases, military training, preparations for
possible war, aggression in the Middle East. If they sacrifice that,
it's serious.
D.B.: And the Mavi Marmara incident, in which nine Turkish civilians
were killed.
N.C.: The Mavi Marmara was part of a flotilla. It was attacked in
international waters by Israeli commandos, who killed nine people,
Turks, one of them Turkish American. Attacking a ship in international
waters is a serious crime. Israel was kind of surprised at the
reaction-with some justification, because they've been hijacking ships
in international waters since the late 1970's, and the U.S. never
made a fuss about it. They've been attacking ships going from Cyprus
to Lebanon, sometimes killing people, sometimes taking prisoners,
kidnapping them, and taking them off into Israeli jails, where they
are kept as hostages. And the master never objected. So they were a
little surprised that there was a fuss about this. But there was a lot
of international indignation, not just by Turkey but more broadly,
for their really criminal behavior. Turkey demanded an apology,
Israel refused. It led to a serious souring of relations.
D.B.: There has been a severing of diplomatic relations.
N.C.: Severing at least on the surface. There's probably more going
on under the surface. But, yes, a formal severing of relations.
D.B.: The Kurds, who straddle three or four countries-Iran, Iraq,
Turkey-constitute, I think, the largest single minority in the world
that does not have a nation-state. What about the situation of the
Kurds, particularly the semi-autonomy that they have achieved in
northern Iraq? How viable is that?
N.C.: There are plenty of problems. They have achieved a kind of
semi-autonomy in northern Iraq, but, first of all, there's a lot of
repression and corruption there. Furthermore, it's fragile. And it's
not really viable. They're landlocked. If they don't have significant
support from the outside, they can't be sustained for long. And they're
not only landlocked but they're surrounded by enemies, so Iran on one
side, Turkey on the other, Arab Iraq as well. There's a connection
to Syria, but that doesn't help much. So it exists by the tolerance
of the great powers, primarily the U.S., which could be withdrawn.
The U.S. has repeatedly sold them out over the years. They sold them
out to Saddam Hussein in the 1970's and again in the 1980's. During
Saddam Hussein's atrocities against the Kurds, the U.S. government
tried to silence them. The Reagan Administration refused even to
acknowledge them. They tried to blame them on Iran. The Kurds have
an old saying, which goes something like, "Our only friends are the
mountains," meaning we can't rely on outsiders for support. If you
look at their history, they have plenty of reason to believe that. So I
think they have to find some mode of accommodation with the surrounding
countries and also a way to deal with their Kurdish population.
The Kurdish population, say, in Turkey, is quite excited about Kurdish
semi-autonomy in Iraq.
D.B.: They see that as a model?
N.C.: They see that as something hopeful, but they themselves have
not been well treated by the semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurds, who are
after their own interests. One of the few American journalists to
have really worked in the area, Kevin McKiernan, once described a
mountain in northern Iraq called Mount Kandil. He said it has two
sides: on one side there are terrorists, on the other side there are
freedom fighters. They're exactly the same people: They're Kurdish
nationalists. But one side faces Turkey, so they're terrorists. The
other side faces Iran, so they're freedom fighters. Apparently,
they're pretty well integrated. It's reported that the guerrillas on
the mountain have regular commercial and other interactions with the
general surrounding population.
by David Barsamian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/02/09/chomsky/#comments
February 9, 2012
David Barsamian, the director of Colorado-based Alternative Radio,
conducted the following interview with Noam Chomsky on Jan. 20 at
MIT in Cambridge, Mass.
Noam Chomsky Chomsky is the internationally renowned Institute
Professor Emeritus at MIT. In addition to his pioneering work in
linguistics, he has been a leading voice for peace and social justice
for many decades. "The New Statesman" calls him "the conscience of
the American people."
Howard Zinn described him as "the nation's most distinguished
intellectual rebel." He's the author of scores of books including
Failed States, What We Say Goes, and Hopes and Prospects.
Chomsky and David Barsamian have collaborated on a series of
best-selling books.
Their latest is How the World Works. This interview will be part of
Demand the Impossible, to be published later this year.
The Armenian Weekly thanks David Barsamian for providing a transcript
of the interview.
***
D.B.: Let's talk about Turkey. The country for a number of years
strove to get into the European Union, and did not succeed. There's
a front-page New York Times article [Jan. 5, 2012] entitled "Turkey's
Glow Dims as Press Faces Charges." Turkish human rights advocates say
that there's been a "crackdown" on journalists that "is part of an
ominous trend." Further, it says, "The arrests threaten to darken the
image of the prime minister, Erdogan, who is lionized in the Middle
East as a powerful regional leader who can stand up to Israel and
the West." According to this report, "There are now 97 members of
the news media in jail in Turkey, including journalists, publishers,
and distributors," a figure that human "rights groups say exceeds the
number detained in China." One of those imprisoned is Nadim Sener,
an award-winning journalist, for his reporting on the murder of Hrant
Dink, a prominent Turkish-Armenian journalist who was assassinated
in Istanbul in January 2007.
N.C.: First of all, that this report should appear in the New York
Times has ample ironic connotations. What's going on in Turkey is
pretty bad. On the other hand, it doesn't begin to compare with what
was going on in the 1990's. The Turkish state was carrying out a major
terrorist war against the Kurdish population: tens of thousands of
people killed, thousands of towns and villages destroyed, probably
millions of refugees, torture, every kind of atrocity you can think
of. The Times barely reported it.
They certainly didn't report-or if they did, it was very marginal-the
fact that 80 percent of the weapons were coming from the U.S., and that
Clinton was so supportive of the atrocities that in 1997, kind of when
they were peaking, that single year Clinton sent more arms to Turkey
than in the entire Cold War period combined up until the onset of the
counterinsurgency campaign. That's pretty serious. You won't find it
in the New York Times. Their correspondent in Ankara, Stephen Kinzer,
barely reported anything. Not that he didn't know. Everybody knew.
David Barsamian So now if they're upset about human rights violations,
we can take the reaction with a grain of salt. Now they are willing to
highlight the human rights violations because it's not the U.S. that's
backing them, it's a country that's been standing up to the U.S. And
that they don't like. Erdogan's popularity in the Middle East does
not make him popular in the U.S. He's by far the most popular figure
in the Arab world, whereas Obama's popularity is actually lower than
Bush's, which is quite a trick.
Turkey has taken a fairly independent role in world affairs, which
the U.S. doesn't like at all. They've maintained trade relations with
Iran-in fact, are even increasing them. Turkey and Brazil carried
out a major crime. They succeeded in getting Iran to agree to a
program of transferring the low-enriched uranium out of Iran, which
happened to virtually duplicate Obama's program. In fact, Obama had
actually written a letter to Lula, the Brazilian president, urging
him to proceed with this, mainly because Washington assumed that
Iran would never agree, and then they could use it as a diplomatic
weapon against them and have more support for sanctions. But they
did agree. There was great anger here that they got Iran to agree,
because then that might undermine the push for sanctions, which is
what they really were after. So that was another source of hostility.
And there are others. For example, in the case of Libya, Turkey,
which is a NATO power, interfered with NATO's early efforts to carry
out the bombing of Libya, effectively overriding the UN resolution,
though they claimed they were observing it. Turkey was by no means
cooperative; in fact, they actually blocked NATO meetings. Washington
didn't like that either.
They don't like the increasing trade relations with Iran, they don't
like their independent foreign policy. So given that situation, it's
appropriate to condemn human rights violations in Turkey, which are
there. There's been regression. Actually, there was a lot of progress
over the past 10 years, quite considerable progress, but the last
couple of years have been pretty unpleasant. It's correct to protest
them, cynicism aside.
D.B.: In March 2011, Orhan Pamuk, a leading Turkish writer, Nobel
Prize winner, was fined for his statement in a Swiss newspaper that
"We have killed 30,000 Kurds and 1 million Armenians." Hardly any
discussion of Turkey can take place without mention of at least the
Kurds, and sometimes of the Armenians.
N.C.: Actually, the Kurds are rarely discussed. The worst atrocities
against the Kurds, as I mentioned, were in the 1990's. And then the
press coverage was very slight and dismissive. I actually ran through
it once. There were a couple of things, but not a lot. That, of course,
was the most significant period, not just because of the scale of the
atrocities but because we could have stopped them. They were being
supported strongly by the U.S., and NATO generally, the U.S. in the
lead. If that had been made public, it could have had an effect.
It was particularly striking in 1999. There was a NATO conference, an
anniversary, in 1999, that was right around the time of the decision
to bomb Serbia. There was plenty of coverage in the West about how
NATO was lamenting the fact that atrocities are being carried out so
close to the NATO world, so we have to do something about it, like
bomb Serbia. Actually, much worse atrocities were being carried out
within NATO, namely, in Turkey. But try to find a word about that. You
can find a word. I wrote about it, a couple of other mavericks wrote
about it. So the cynicism is overwhelming.
But putting that aside, the problems are real. I was in Turkey a
year ago at a conference on freedom of speech. A large part of it
was devoted to the Turkish journalists speaking, describing their own
activities in trying to write about, expose the Hrant Dink murder, the
atrocity against the Armenians, the repression of the Kurds. These are
very courageous people. It's not like a New York Times correspondent,
who could write about it if he wanted and nothing would happen. Maybe
he would be censured by the editors. These guys can get sent to jail,
undergo torture. That's serious. But they talk openly and strikingly.
In fact, one of the most interesting things about Turkey-here, again,
is an irony-the European Union says, "We can't invite them in because
they don't meet our high standards of human rights," and so on. Turkey
is about the only country I know of in which leading intellectuals,
journalists, academics, writers, professors, and publishers not only
constantly protest the atrocities of the state but regularly carry out
civil disobedience against it. I actually participated to an extent
10 years ago when I went there. There's nothing like that in the West.
They put their Western counterparts to shame. So if there are lessons
to be learned, I think it's in the other direction. Frankly, I never
thought that Turkey would be admitted into the EU, mainly on racist
grounds. I don't think Western Europeans like the idea of Turks
walking around freely in their streets.
D.B.: How do Turkish-Israeli relations have an influence Washington,
with the 2010 Israeli commando raid in international waters on a
Turkish ship killing nine Turks, one of whom was an American citizen?
And now there has been a suspension of diplomatic relations.
N.C.: It started before that. Turkey was the only major country,
certainly the only NATO country, to have protested very sharply against
the U.S.-Israeli attack on Gaza in 2008-09. And it was a U.S.-Israeli
attack. Israel dropped the bombs, but the U.S. backed it, blocked
the UN resolution, and so on, including Obama. Turkey came out very
strongly in condemnation. There was a famous incident in Davos at
the World Economic Forum where the Turkish prime minister spoke out
strongly against the attack while Shimon Peres, the Israeli president,
was on stage with him.
In general, they stood out for their protest-one reason why Erdogan
is so popular in the Arab world. Of course, the U.S. didn't like that.
Having cordial relations with Iran and condemning Israeli crimes does
not make you a favored figure in Georgetown cocktail parties.
D.B.: And now there's a report that Israel, which has long been
denying the Armenian Genocide, is considering a resolution, primarily
to irritate the Turks now, who they know are hypersensitive to any
mention of the Armenian Genocide.
N.C.: It cuts both ways. Israel and Turkey were pretty close allies.
In fact, Turkey was the closest ally of Israel, apart from the U.S.
Their alliance was kept kind of under cover, but it was perfectly
open, from the late 1950's. It was very important for Israel to have
a powerful non-Arab state allied to it. Turkey and Iran under the
Shah were very close to Israel. At that time they refused to allow
any discussion of the Armenian Genocide.
In 1982, Israel had a Holocaust conference. It was organized by a
Holocaust specialist in Israel, Israel Charny, somebody I knew as a
kid in Hebrew-speaking camps. He went to Israel. He organized it. He
wanted to invite someone to talk about the Armenian atrocities, and
the government tried to block it, strongly opposed it. In fact, they
pressured Elie Wiesel, who was supposed to be the honorary chair,
to resign, which he did. They went ahead with it anyway. It was
over strong government opposition. At that time Turkey was an ally,
so you don't talk about it.
Now, as you say, relations are frayed, so you can sort of stick it
to the Turks, you can talk about it now. In fact, Israel's behavior
has been pretty remarkable. One of the incidents that didn't get
much publicity here but really bothered the Turks was a meeting
between the Turkish ambassador to Israel and Danny Ayalon, the deputy
foreign minister. He called in the Turkish ambassador and they set up
a photo op with the Turkish ambassador sitting on a very low chair and
Ayalon sitting on a higher chair above him. And then the photographs
are publicized all over. Countries don't act like that. It's very
humiliating. The Turks didn't like it a bit. Israel is so arrogant,
they didn't care. They figure, we can do anything we like so long as
the master is behind us, which he is.
That's one of a series of events which actually, from Israel's own
strategic point of view, is not very brilliant. The Turkish-Israeli
military strategic relationship, trade relationship, commercial
relationship is pretty significant. Again, we don't really know the
details, but for years Israel has been using eastern Turkey, as the
U.S. has, for military bases, military training, preparations for
possible war, aggression in the Middle East. If they sacrifice that,
it's serious.
D.B.: And the Mavi Marmara incident, in which nine Turkish civilians
were killed.
N.C.: The Mavi Marmara was part of a flotilla. It was attacked in
international waters by Israeli commandos, who killed nine people,
Turks, one of them Turkish American. Attacking a ship in international
waters is a serious crime. Israel was kind of surprised at the
reaction-with some justification, because they've been hijacking ships
in international waters since the late 1970's, and the U.S. never
made a fuss about it. They've been attacking ships going from Cyprus
to Lebanon, sometimes killing people, sometimes taking prisoners,
kidnapping them, and taking them off into Israeli jails, where they
are kept as hostages. And the master never objected. So they were a
little surprised that there was a fuss about this. But there was a lot
of international indignation, not just by Turkey but more broadly,
for their really criminal behavior. Turkey demanded an apology,
Israel refused. It led to a serious souring of relations.
D.B.: There has been a severing of diplomatic relations.
N.C.: Severing at least on the surface. There's probably more going
on under the surface. But, yes, a formal severing of relations.
D.B.: The Kurds, who straddle three or four countries-Iran, Iraq,
Turkey-constitute, I think, the largest single minority in the world
that does not have a nation-state. What about the situation of the
Kurds, particularly the semi-autonomy that they have achieved in
northern Iraq? How viable is that?
N.C.: There are plenty of problems. They have achieved a kind of
semi-autonomy in northern Iraq, but, first of all, there's a lot of
repression and corruption there. Furthermore, it's fragile. And it's
not really viable. They're landlocked. If they don't have significant
support from the outside, they can't be sustained for long. And they're
not only landlocked but they're surrounded by enemies, so Iran on one
side, Turkey on the other, Arab Iraq as well. There's a connection
to Syria, but that doesn't help much. So it exists by the tolerance
of the great powers, primarily the U.S., which could be withdrawn.
The U.S. has repeatedly sold them out over the years. They sold them
out to Saddam Hussein in the 1970's and again in the 1980's. During
Saddam Hussein's atrocities against the Kurds, the U.S. government
tried to silence them. The Reagan Administration refused even to
acknowledge them. They tried to blame them on Iran. The Kurds have
an old saying, which goes something like, "Our only friends are the
mountains," meaning we can't rely on outsiders for support. If you
look at their history, they have plenty of reason to believe that. So I
think they have to find some mode of accommodation with the surrounding
countries and also a way to deal with their Kurdish population.
The Kurdish population, say, in Turkey, is quite excited about Kurdish
semi-autonomy in Iraq.
D.B.: They see that as a model?
N.C.: They see that as something hopeful, but they themselves have
not been well treated by the semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurds, who are
after their own interests. One of the few American journalists to
have really worked in the area, Kevin McKiernan, once described a
mountain in northern Iraq called Mount Kandil. He said it has two
sides: on one side there are terrorists, on the other side there are
freedom fighters. They're exactly the same people: They're Kurdish
nationalists. But one side faces Turkey, so they're terrorists. The
other side faces Iran, so they're freedom fighters. Apparently,
they're pretty well integrated. It's reported that the guerrillas on
the mountain have regular commercial and other interactions with the
general surrounding population.