Tweet
The Kurdish Globe
June 18, 2012
The Turkish advocate of the Kurds
Globe interviews Ismael Besikci
The Kurdish Globe By Mehmed Sabri Akg�n�l Globe: You are identified
together with the Kurdish question in Turkey. How would you define the
Kurdish Question? Besikci: Actually the Kurdish Question is the
Question of Kurdistan which got stolen on the rights to establish an
independent state after the World War I, during the period of the
League of Nations, when Kurdistan got divided into four pieces.
The very first division of the Kurds and the Kurdish territory
officially took place at the Treaty of Qasr-e Shirin in 1639.
Secondly, at the end of the Russo-Iranian wars of 1812-1813 and then
1826-1828, northern areas of Iranian-controlled parts of Kurdistan
came under complete Russian rule. Finally, Kurdistan was divided once
more in the 1920s during the period of the League of Nations.
Although the Kurds were already uprising, the founder of the League of
Nations ignored the demands of them. Sheikh Mahmud Barzanji was at the
same time, struggling for freedom for Kurds in southern Kurdistan. One
of the processes characterizing this period was the principle of
national self-determination. Kurdistan and the Kurds got divided and
fragmented especially at this period when this principle was supported
and glorified by both the leaders such as Lenin and Stalin of Soviet
Union and also U.S. President Wilson.
The division and fragmentation of Kurds and Kurdistan have created a
huge negative impact on Kurds. The division and fragmentation of the
Kurds and Kurdistan show us the following: When a nation faces the
division and the fragmentation at a specific period of the history and
it might also end up in redeveloping and reproducing situation. The
exposure of division and fragmentation of Kurdistan is unique. Even
the Arab nation has been divided after the WWI, but as separate
independent states. There is a big difference between these two
divisions, in terms of significance.
Globe: "Kurdistan is an international colony" was the definition at
your previous works. Later, you defined Kurdistan as "being not even a
colony." Could you please explain the difference between these two
thesis? Besikci: I'd like to thank to you for drawing attention to the
concept of "being not even a colony." There are two main groups of
colonies in the history of colonialism: full colonies and
semi-colonies. But the political status of Kurds is far less than the
status of a colony. Kurdistan is neither a full nor a semi-colony. (Of
course we have to evaluate KRG separately) Colony has its border. For
example, when you say that "Uganda was a colony of Great Britain" or
"Angola was a colony of Portugal", you have mentioned with defined
borders. In other words, the people living in Uganda were not British,
neither was Uganda considered part of Great Britain and there was no
attempt to transform the native people into Englishmen.
In 1950s, African countries struggled for national independence and
anti-imperialism and they gained the status of being a state in
accordance to the borders in 1885. This situation has two exceptions:
Eritrea and Sudan. With the establishment of these states, a change
was done on the borders of 1885. However, the name of Kurd and
Kurdistan have been divided, crumbled and shared by eradicating these
names either in tongues or history. Furthermore, another point must be
underlined: colonies were not established with the intention of
remaining as a colony. In the control of colonial power, such a power
will give independence to the dependent colony when it comes to
"particular phase", administratively, politically and economically.
There was such a understanding of colonialism in 1885 and in 1920s.
The properties which are stated here are not valid for Kurdistan.
Kurds and Kurdistan do not have a status. There is no border. There is
neither the name of Kurd nor the name of Kurdistan officaly. It is
wanted for Kurds and Kurdistan to remain in such a situation. That is
why Kurdistan is not even a colony. There can be a utility to
reexamine these relations. For example, while colonies dependent on
Great Britain such as Iraq, Jordan, Palestine or colonies dependent on
France such as Syria and Lebanon are established, these imperial
powers did not think of an independent Kurdistan, even a colonial
Kurdistan. In this period, the foremost global colonial powers in
France and Great Britain; with the two rooted countries in Middle
East, the successor of Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the
successor of Iranian Empire, which is new Iran; as four powers
together descended on Kurdistan.
Globe: Before and after the World War I, there are either
nationalist-intellectuals or military-organized Kurdish groups in
Kurdistan. Why did imperial power designing Middle East approached
Kurds as an identity element, although Kurds showed a required
political willpower? Besikci: To know the answer of this question, the
relations between imperial powers in this period should be deeply
analyzed. Everyone utters about the solutions on Kurdish question, but
before the solutions, at first the basic feature of the problem should
be elaborated in the Kurdistan question. In this respect, after the
First World War, in 1920s, during the League of Nations, division,
crumbling and sharing of Kurds and Kurdistan must necessarily be
examined. The most important conference was the Lausanne conference
but Kurds were not present there. I think that division of Kurds and
Kurdistan was not documented in writing in 1923. Division of Kurdistan
at those times may be a verbal agreement. At that time, destruction of
Kurdistan is the product of a verbal agreement made in backstage not
in tables.
Today, while there are even some countries which have the population
of 30-40 thousand or 100-200 thousand, it is a remarkable situation
that Kurds which has the population of nearly 40 million in
Middle-East do not have a political status. Because of the fact that
League of Nations could not create a peaceful ambiance, World War II
began. After the World War II, during the period of League of Nations,
many changes occurred politically all around the world. For example,
before the Second World War, while there were two independent
countries in Africa, today this number is 57. However, there has been
no change for Kurds and Kurdistan and same "the sacred status-quo"
which did not give a political status to Kurds was sustained.
Globe: States that share Kurdistan acted in a political-military
coordination against to Kurdish nation at all times. However, in
recent years, the emerging new developments in the Middle East and
enter in the process of state-formaton and state-building in south
Kurdistan has left those states in a very difficult situation. What
will these new process bring Kurds of other part of Kurdistan?
Besikci: In the 1920s the status quo, which has left the Kurds without
a political status, cracked after the U.S. intervention in Iraq in
2003. In that time, the imperial powers created "the sacred
status-quo" and left Kurds stateless in the 1920. In the early 2000s,
it seems that another imperial power has opened the breaches among
these status quos and increasingly has distinguished them. This is
also an irony of history. There are no states or powers in the Middle
East satisfied with this intervention. They were against this
intervention but the Kurds benefited from the results of it. At the
end of it, Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) was established. KRG
emerged as a result of the Kurds? stable approaches and struggles
because America did not want any big changes and desired to continue
the layout with someone who would closer in Iraq after the overthrow
of Saddam. In other words, the USA did not think a federal Iraq.
However, it is a very important that political development in current
Middle East makes Arabs accept the concept of a federal Iraq by Kurds,
emerging KRG and regulation of the constitution in this direction.
Turkey, Iran and Syria also had to accept these current affairs.
Naturally these circumstances affected the other parts of Kurdistan
positively and will impact anymore.
Globe: As you know President Massoud Barzani began to declaim
independency demand loudly. How will this manner and possible
independency decision reflect the Kurds in other parts and states
governing other parts? Besikci: If we made this interview in 1998-99,
I cannot guess that Jalal Talabani would be the president of Iraq. The
reason for giving this example is to underline that external dynamics
are the essential factors for Kurdish issue. Internal dynamics of
Kurdistan have already broken up in 1920s. Determinant external
dynamics have functioned for the sake of Kurds since 2003. Afterward,
serious relations have been lived between Turkey and KRG in trade and
energy sector. A relation between turkey and KRG is related with
external dynamics.
Globe: Well, what is internal dynamic? Besikci: It is the national
conscience of Kurds. The threats that the Kurds have been subjected
to, can be overcome as long as Kurdish national conscience improves.
Globe: Are the policies of PKK/BDP, the essential actor of Kurdish
policy in North Kurdistan, consistent with Kurdish national conscience
that you described as internal dynamics? Besikci: As I mentioned, a
lot of Kurdish political cadres are talking about the resolution of
Kurdish issue. However, it is the quality of the question that we have
to talk about. How Kurds have been lead to this cursed situation? The
essential question is this. But the PKK/BDP is no interested with this
question. If you look the manner of the PKK/BDP, as if this situation
the Kurds are subjected to were living in another country. Such
statements of PKK/BDP as "Nationalism is a bad ideology, all kind of
nationalism is bad", "nation-state is dead", and "each ethnicity does
not need a state", are the slogans trying to blunt, reroute the
improving Kurdish national conscience.
How the 40 million Kurds are compared with an ethnicity only 3- 5
thousand around the world. If the nation state is dead, what is the
reason for the struggles for the Palestine in order to be an
independent state? Why Turkey struggle so much for recognition Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus as an independent state? If nation-state
is dead, why the South Sudan was founded? Why Kosovo, Montenegro was
founded, If nation-state is dead, why Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Macedonia and so on, came out? Why did Czechoslovakia split into two
parts? Why will Scotland make referendum in 2014 in order to be an
independent state? The aim of such statements is to prevent the
Kurdish state. These statements are not beneficial for Kurds, but
function for the sake of the states governing Kurdistan.
Globe: How do you evaluate the Democratic autonomy which was
unilaterally declared in north Kurdistan in 2011? Besikci: In my
opinion, Kurds should demand federalism as the minimum status.
Globe: Most of political cadres from north Kurdistan explain that they
are not secessionist or separatist. What do you think about these
expressions? Besikci: As you say, most of them are saying that "we are
not secessionist, separatists." There is no any historical conscience
and social conscience in these statements. This means not to be aware
of the cursed situation that Kurds have been subjected to in 1920's.
Because Kurdish nation is the one who have been fragmented and divided
and also Kurdistan is the country which has been split and shared.
Globe: The most important insolubility in north Kurdistan is the
politic view trying to govern a national issue with minority politics.
How do you describe the national politics or Kurdayeti (Kurdishness)?
Besikci: It is described as having respect for the nation-country
reality of Kurds. The aim of this policy is that Kurds should have
their own state. The projects apart from the ones that will give
political sovereignty to Kurds will legitimize the states that
exploiting them, rather than Kurds.
Globe: There has been discussions on Kurdish national conferrance for
few years. According to you, what does that national conference mean
in a country divided into four pieces and what should be the agenda of
this conference? Besikci: The national conference should be a
conference that feel obligated to overcome the situation of being
shared, separated and divided of Kurdistan. If there is an aim like
that, this conference can be meaningful. But I am not sure whether
Kurdish politicians have this awareness about this separation,
division and sharing this situation. It is being said that this
conference will take a decision to say to the PKK "lay down arms." I
think it is not a right attitude. It is not rational while arming
Syria National Council in this period, to say on the other hand to the
PKK "lay down arms." How did Kurdish people gain the actual gainings
until today? How many requisitions did they gain to lay down arms? It
is wrong to take decisons like that on behalf of the PKK. But also it
will be wrong not to talk about the reasons of division of Kurdistan
and how Kurdish nation will be independent and united.
I think Kurdish national conference can not take considerable
decisions because there is no resemblence between parties
pariticipating in conference.
Globe: What do you mean when you say "resemblence"? Besikci: For
example, PKK has no trouble with the fragmentation and division of
Kurdistan. Kurds also has not a policy of becoming a state. On the
other hand, Barzani targets national politics. Since these two aims
can not go well together. I dont think any considerable solution would
be offered in this conference.
Globe: There has been an uniterrupted struggle in the north Kurdistan
for the last 30 years. In your opinion what are the tactical and
strategical faults of this struggle? Besikci: When this struggle began
in 1984, I thought that this struggle would develop the national and
homeland conciousness of Kurds. But it did not. National conciousness
of Kurds developed in some degree but homeland conciousness never
developed. Still the most important aim of democratic autonomy is
living with Turks in a "common homeland" this "common homeland" refers
to Turkey not to Kurdistan. In this situation the reality of a country
for Kurds is being denied. The most important mistake is not having
evolve the conciuosness of homeland. Guerilla struggle should have
developed this conciousness however there has not been any positive
development.
Globe: Lately, statements like "staying out of the Turkish sovereignty
system" have started to being uttered loudly. According to you what
does it mean for Kurds being inside of Turkish sovereignty system and
staying out of it? Besikci: Turkish sovereignty system should be
criticized and if Kurds stay in this system and struggle with it they
will be a simple iner-opposition element.
Globe: In your opinion what kind of opportunities do Kurds have if
they stay out of that system? Besikci: First of all the conciuosness
of national, homeland and language of Kurds will develop. For example
they will at least discussing the system of federalism. When Kurds in
north Kurdistan get united, they will start to discuss the realities
of Kurdistan and its needs-- not the realities of Turkey and its
needs.
Globe: Recently Kurdish Hezbollah took the decission of getting
politicized. How do you think this decision will change the political
face of north Kurdistan? Besikci: In 1990s when the guerrilla struggle
increased Turkey created Kurdish Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is an organization founded by Turkish state. They never
fought against Turkish police or soldiers instead they always fought
against Kurds. Hezbollah firstly has to auto-criticize itself. But I
need to say that the decision of conservative Kurdish community's
getting politicized includes the potential of reducing AKP's votes.
Globe: As you know some remarkable changing occured in Middle East
during last year. What do you think about the attitude of Turkey
towards the events in Syria and also the attitudes of Syrian Kurds?
Besikci: It can be said that Syrian Kurds can gain de facto autonomy.
I think this status would remain whether Al-Assad's regime would fail
or not. Turkey struggles for organizing the Syrian opponents and
endorsing the Free Syrian Army. The main purpose of these aids is to
prevent any status that would be gained by Kurds in Syria. Turkey has
negotiated to be the main actor of a military intervention in Syria or
at least creation of a no-fly zone on Syrian soil in order to prevent
a possible Kurdish regional government. To me, if this choatic
condition goes on, this would provide some advantages to Kurds. In
this context, the more crises in Syria would bring more gain to Kurds.
Additionaly, Syrian Kurds surely have to improve their alliance. They
should perform a common policy towords both al-Assad regime and Syrian
opposition groups.
From: Baghdasarian
June 18, 2012
The Turkish advocate of the Kurds
Globe interviews Ismael Besikci
The Kurdish Globe By Mehmed Sabri Akg�n�l Globe: You are identified
together with the Kurdish question in Turkey. How would you define the
Kurdish Question? Besikci: Actually the Kurdish Question is the
Question of Kurdistan which got stolen on the rights to establish an
independent state after the World War I, during the period of the
League of Nations, when Kurdistan got divided into four pieces.
The very first division of the Kurds and the Kurdish territory
officially took place at the Treaty of Qasr-e Shirin in 1639.
Secondly, at the end of the Russo-Iranian wars of 1812-1813 and then
1826-1828, northern areas of Iranian-controlled parts of Kurdistan
came under complete Russian rule. Finally, Kurdistan was divided once
more in the 1920s during the period of the League of Nations.
Although the Kurds were already uprising, the founder of the League of
Nations ignored the demands of them. Sheikh Mahmud Barzanji was at the
same time, struggling for freedom for Kurds in southern Kurdistan. One
of the processes characterizing this period was the principle of
national self-determination. Kurdistan and the Kurds got divided and
fragmented especially at this period when this principle was supported
and glorified by both the leaders such as Lenin and Stalin of Soviet
Union and also U.S. President Wilson.
The division and fragmentation of Kurds and Kurdistan have created a
huge negative impact on Kurds. The division and fragmentation of the
Kurds and Kurdistan show us the following: When a nation faces the
division and the fragmentation at a specific period of the history and
it might also end up in redeveloping and reproducing situation. The
exposure of division and fragmentation of Kurdistan is unique. Even
the Arab nation has been divided after the WWI, but as separate
independent states. There is a big difference between these two
divisions, in terms of significance.
Globe: "Kurdistan is an international colony" was the definition at
your previous works. Later, you defined Kurdistan as "being not even a
colony." Could you please explain the difference between these two
thesis? Besikci: I'd like to thank to you for drawing attention to the
concept of "being not even a colony." There are two main groups of
colonies in the history of colonialism: full colonies and
semi-colonies. But the political status of Kurds is far less than the
status of a colony. Kurdistan is neither a full nor a semi-colony. (Of
course we have to evaluate KRG separately) Colony has its border. For
example, when you say that "Uganda was a colony of Great Britain" or
"Angola was a colony of Portugal", you have mentioned with defined
borders. In other words, the people living in Uganda were not British,
neither was Uganda considered part of Great Britain and there was no
attempt to transform the native people into Englishmen.
In 1950s, African countries struggled for national independence and
anti-imperialism and they gained the status of being a state in
accordance to the borders in 1885. This situation has two exceptions:
Eritrea and Sudan. With the establishment of these states, a change
was done on the borders of 1885. However, the name of Kurd and
Kurdistan have been divided, crumbled and shared by eradicating these
names either in tongues or history. Furthermore, another point must be
underlined: colonies were not established with the intention of
remaining as a colony. In the control of colonial power, such a power
will give independence to the dependent colony when it comes to
"particular phase", administratively, politically and economically.
There was such a understanding of colonialism in 1885 and in 1920s.
The properties which are stated here are not valid for Kurdistan.
Kurds and Kurdistan do not have a status. There is no border. There is
neither the name of Kurd nor the name of Kurdistan officaly. It is
wanted for Kurds and Kurdistan to remain in such a situation. That is
why Kurdistan is not even a colony. There can be a utility to
reexamine these relations. For example, while colonies dependent on
Great Britain such as Iraq, Jordan, Palestine or colonies dependent on
France such as Syria and Lebanon are established, these imperial
powers did not think of an independent Kurdistan, even a colonial
Kurdistan. In this period, the foremost global colonial powers in
France and Great Britain; with the two rooted countries in Middle
East, the successor of Ottoman Empire, the Republic of Turkey and the
successor of Iranian Empire, which is new Iran; as four powers
together descended on Kurdistan.
Globe: Before and after the World War I, there are either
nationalist-intellectuals or military-organized Kurdish groups in
Kurdistan. Why did imperial power designing Middle East approached
Kurds as an identity element, although Kurds showed a required
political willpower? Besikci: To know the answer of this question, the
relations between imperial powers in this period should be deeply
analyzed. Everyone utters about the solutions on Kurdish question, but
before the solutions, at first the basic feature of the problem should
be elaborated in the Kurdistan question. In this respect, after the
First World War, in 1920s, during the League of Nations, division,
crumbling and sharing of Kurds and Kurdistan must necessarily be
examined. The most important conference was the Lausanne conference
but Kurds were not present there. I think that division of Kurds and
Kurdistan was not documented in writing in 1923. Division of Kurdistan
at those times may be a verbal agreement. At that time, destruction of
Kurdistan is the product of a verbal agreement made in backstage not
in tables.
Today, while there are even some countries which have the population
of 30-40 thousand or 100-200 thousand, it is a remarkable situation
that Kurds which has the population of nearly 40 million in
Middle-East do not have a political status. Because of the fact that
League of Nations could not create a peaceful ambiance, World War II
began. After the World War II, during the period of League of Nations,
many changes occurred politically all around the world. For example,
before the Second World War, while there were two independent
countries in Africa, today this number is 57. However, there has been
no change for Kurds and Kurdistan and same "the sacred status-quo"
which did not give a political status to Kurds was sustained.
Globe: States that share Kurdistan acted in a political-military
coordination against to Kurdish nation at all times. However, in
recent years, the emerging new developments in the Middle East and
enter in the process of state-formaton and state-building in south
Kurdistan has left those states in a very difficult situation. What
will these new process bring Kurds of other part of Kurdistan?
Besikci: In the 1920s the status quo, which has left the Kurds without
a political status, cracked after the U.S. intervention in Iraq in
2003. In that time, the imperial powers created "the sacred
status-quo" and left Kurds stateless in the 1920. In the early 2000s,
it seems that another imperial power has opened the breaches among
these status quos and increasingly has distinguished them. This is
also an irony of history. There are no states or powers in the Middle
East satisfied with this intervention. They were against this
intervention but the Kurds benefited from the results of it. At the
end of it, Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) was established. KRG
emerged as a result of the Kurds? stable approaches and struggles
because America did not want any big changes and desired to continue
the layout with someone who would closer in Iraq after the overthrow
of Saddam. In other words, the USA did not think a federal Iraq.
However, it is a very important that political development in current
Middle East makes Arabs accept the concept of a federal Iraq by Kurds,
emerging KRG and regulation of the constitution in this direction.
Turkey, Iran and Syria also had to accept these current affairs.
Naturally these circumstances affected the other parts of Kurdistan
positively and will impact anymore.
Globe: As you know President Massoud Barzani began to declaim
independency demand loudly. How will this manner and possible
independency decision reflect the Kurds in other parts and states
governing other parts? Besikci: If we made this interview in 1998-99,
I cannot guess that Jalal Talabani would be the president of Iraq. The
reason for giving this example is to underline that external dynamics
are the essential factors for Kurdish issue. Internal dynamics of
Kurdistan have already broken up in 1920s. Determinant external
dynamics have functioned for the sake of Kurds since 2003. Afterward,
serious relations have been lived between Turkey and KRG in trade and
energy sector. A relation between turkey and KRG is related with
external dynamics.
Globe: Well, what is internal dynamic? Besikci: It is the national
conscience of Kurds. The threats that the Kurds have been subjected
to, can be overcome as long as Kurdish national conscience improves.
Globe: Are the policies of PKK/BDP, the essential actor of Kurdish
policy in North Kurdistan, consistent with Kurdish national conscience
that you described as internal dynamics? Besikci: As I mentioned, a
lot of Kurdish political cadres are talking about the resolution of
Kurdish issue. However, it is the quality of the question that we have
to talk about. How Kurds have been lead to this cursed situation? The
essential question is this. But the PKK/BDP is no interested with this
question. If you look the manner of the PKK/BDP, as if this situation
the Kurds are subjected to were living in another country. Such
statements of PKK/BDP as "Nationalism is a bad ideology, all kind of
nationalism is bad", "nation-state is dead", and "each ethnicity does
not need a state", are the slogans trying to blunt, reroute the
improving Kurdish national conscience.
How the 40 million Kurds are compared with an ethnicity only 3- 5
thousand around the world. If the nation state is dead, what is the
reason for the struggles for the Palestine in order to be an
independent state? Why Turkey struggle so much for recognition Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus as an independent state? If nation-state
is dead, why the South Sudan was founded? Why Kosovo, Montenegro was
founded, If nation-state is dead, why Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Macedonia and so on, came out? Why did Czechoslovakia split into two
parts? Why will Scotland make referendum in 2014 in order to be an
independent state? The aim of such statements is to prevent the
Kurdish state. These statements are not beneficial for Kurds, but
function for the sake of the states governing Kurdistan.
Globe: How do you evaluate the Democratic autonomy which was
unilaterally declared in north Kurdistan in 2011? Besikci: In my
opinion, Kurds should demand federalism as the minimum status.
Globe: Most of political cadres from north Kurdistan explain that they
are not secessionist or separatist. What do you think about these
expressions? Besikci: As you say, most of them are saying that "we are
not secessionist, separatists." There is no any historical conscience
and social conscience in these statements. This means not to be aware
of the cursed situation that Kurds have been subjected to in 1920's.
Because Kurdish nation is the one who have been fragmented and divided
and also Kurdistan is the country which has been split and shared.
Globe: The most important insolubility in north Kurdistan is the
politic view trying to govern a national issue with minority politics.
How do you describe the national politics or Kurdayeti (Kurdishness)?
Besikci: It is described as having respect for the nation-country
reality of Kurds. The aim of this policy is that Kurds should have
their own state. The projects apart from the ones that will give
political sovereignty to Kurds will legitimize the states that
exploiting them, rather than Kurds.
Globe: There has been discussions on Kurdish national conferrance for
few years. According to you, what does that national conference mean
in a country divided into four pieces and what should be the agenda of
this conference? Besikci: The national conference should be a
conference that feel obligated to overcome the situation of being
shared, separated and divided of Kurdistan. If there is an aim like
that, this conference can be meaningful. But I am not sure whether
Kurdish politicians have this awareness about this separation,
division and sharing this situation. It is being said that this
conference will take a decision to say to the PKK "lay down arms." I
think it is not a right attitude. It is not rational while arming
Syria National Council in this period, to say on the other hand to the
PKK "lay down arms." How did Kurdish people gain the actual gainings
until today? How many requisitions did they gain to lay down arms? It
is wrong to take decisons like that on behalf of the PKK. But also it
will be wrong not to talk about the reasons of division of Kurdistan
and how Kurdish nation will be independent and united.
I think Kurdish national conference can not take considerable
decisions because there is no resemblence between parties
pariticipating in conference.
Globe: What do you mean when you say "resemblence"? Besikci: For
example, PKK has no trouble with the fragmentation and division of
Kurdistan. Kurds also has not a policy of becoming a state. On the
other hand, Barzani targets national politics. Since these two aims
can not go well together. I dont think any considerable solution would
be offered in this conference.
Globe: There has been an uniterrupted struggle in the north Kurdistan
for the last 30 years. In your opinion what are the tactical and
strategical faults of this struggle? Besikci: When this struggle began
in 1984, I thought that this struggle would develop the national and
homeland conciousness of Kurds. But it did not. National conciousness
of Kurds developed in some degree but homeland conciousness never
developed. Still the most important aim of democratic autonomy is
living with Turks in a "common homeland" this "common homeland" refers
to Turkey not to Kurdistan. In this situation the reality of a country
for Kurds is being denied. The most important mistake is not having
evolve the conciuosness of homeland. Guerilla struggle should have
developed this conciousness however there has not been any positive
development.
Globe: Lately, statements like "staying out of the Turkish sovereignty
system" have started to being uttered loudly. According to you what
does it mean for Kurds being inside of Turkish sovereignty system and
staying out of it? Besikci: Turkish sovereignty system should be
criticized and if Kurds stay in this system and struggle with it they
will be a simple iner-opposition element.
Globe: In your opinion what kind of opportunities do Kurds have if
they stay out of that system? Besikci: First of all the conciuosness
of national, homeland and language of Kurds will develop. For example
they will at least discussing the system of federalism. When Kurds in
north Kurdistan get united, they will start to discuss the realities
of Kurdistan and its needs-- not the realities of Turkey and its
needs.
Globe: Recently Kurdish Hezbollah took the decission of getting
politicized. How do you think this decision will change the political
face of north Kurdistan? Besikci: In 1990s when the guerrilla struggle
increased Turkey created Kurdish Hezbollah.
Hezbollah is an organization founded by Turkish state. They never
fought against Turkish police or soldiers instead they always fought
against Kurds. Hezbollah firstly has to auto-criticize itself. But I
need to say that the decision of conservative Kurdish community's
getting politicized includes the potential of reducing AKP's votes.
Globe: As you know some remarkable changing occured in Middle East
during last year. What do you think about the attitude of Turkey
towards the events in Syria and also the attitudes of Syrian Kurds?
Besikci: It can be said that Syrian Kurds can gain de facto autonomy.
I think this status would remain whether Al-Assad's regime would fail
or not. Turkey struggles for organizing the Syrian opponents and
endorsing the Free Syrian Army. The main purpose of these aids is to
prevent any status that would be gained by Kurds in Syria. Turkey has
negotiated to be the main actor of a military intervention in Syria or
at least creation of a no-fly zone on Syrian soil in order to prevent
a possible Kurdish regional government. To me, if this choatic
condition goes on, this would provide some advantages to Kurds. In
this context, the more crises in Syria would bring more gain to Kurds.
Additionaly, Syrian Kurds surely have to improve their alliance. They
should perform a common policy towords both al-Assad regime and Syrian
opposition groups.
From: Baghdasarian