Tweet
Alliance for Kurdish Rights
Dec 6 2014
`To deal with its past, Turkey must first recognise PKK's fight for freedom'
by Sultan Coban
Last week's most discussed topic in Turkish media was the Dersim
Massacre of 1937-1938. The Turkish Prime Minister's visit to Dersim at
the beginning of last week ignited a heated debate about Dersim. Three
years ago, Erdogan issued a controversial apology for the Dersim
Massacre that was in a way groundbreaking. It sent a strong message to
the public seeing as former ruling parties had previously refused to
call it a massacre or genocide.
The responsibility for the Dersim Massacre lies especially with the
Republican People's Party (CHP, founded by Atatürk), which ordered the
ethnic cleansing of Kurdish clans led by Seyid Riza. Both Kurdish and
AKP-friendly crowds have criticized the current leader of CHP, Kemal
KılıçdaroÄ?lu, partly because he has hesitated upon speaking about his
own background in Dersim but especially because he as the leader of
the party behind the massacre and several other shameful events in
modern Turkish history has failed to take the responsibility upon
himself.
Following Erdogan's apology, it has been discussed on several
occasions whether the official name of the city Tunceli should be
changed to Dersim. Der-sim in Kurdish means `silver door' while
Tunc-eli means `a steel area'. Allegedly, the latter was meant to
symbolize the strength of the inhabitants. Dersim was changed to
Tunceli in 1935, just two years before the massacre.
According to the Turkish-Armenian online newspaper Bolsohays, a great
number of Armenian, Kurdish, Laz and Greek city and village names were
changed during the period between 1923, when the Republic of Turkey
was established, and 1940. The changing of names continued after 1940
when it was officially decided to change location names that did not
have roots in the Turkish language and culture. These alterations were
just a small part of the assimilation policies encompassed by the
Turkification process against the country's ethnic groups. The
Turkification process is what caused opposition from Seyh Said (1925),
Seyid Riza (1935-1938) and the PKK revolt from the beginning of the
80's until today.
Bahçeli in Dersim
Shortly after Prime Minister DavutoÄ?lu visited Dersim, the leader of
the ultra-nationalistic party, The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP),
Devlet Bahçeli announced that he, too, would pay a visit to `Tunceli'
on Friday. Prior to that, Bahçeli had expressed at a party meeting
that the objective of the Dersim Massacre was to crack down on
`hypocritical terrorists' and that he would strike them the same way
today. Bahçeli compared the Dersim resistance to PKK and called those
resisting `that time's terrorists'. It is not the first time Bahçeli
has voiced such opinions. On the contrary, this was a mild statement
compared to previous ones. However, his statement is important because
it puts the perception of Dersim shared by the majority of Turkish
politicians into words.
It is therefore not surprising that Bahçeli came with a convoy of 500
people from ElazıÄ? when he showed up in Dersim; 250 of them security
guards and police meant to protect Bahçeli from the `rage' of Dersim.
It was comical to see that Bahçeli had to cut his trip short as he was
met by protesters who obstructed the entrance of Bahçeli and his
nationalistic crowd into the city. Bahçeli was forced to give a speech
on the stairs of the governor's office where party members could
applaud his speech uninterrupted.
What About Erdogan?
Another important visit took place in Istanbul. It was the Catholic
Pope Francis' first visit to Turkey. He met with President Erdogan but
also Prime Minister DavutoÄ?lu and Mehmet Görmez, head of the Ministry
for Religious Affairs. The meetings were broadcasted live.
Both Görmez and the Pope expressed messages of peace. Görmez
especially emphasised that ISIS was a threat against the whole world,
including Islam. Görmez furthermore stated that there was a tendency
to Islamophobia in the West, saying it is just as bad as
anti-Semitism.
I noticed that Erdogan's speech focused mainly on war and chaos, among
other things speaking of ISIS who he called `Daesh.' He turned the
focus to Assad and expressed disappointment that the West has ignored
Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian war's real perpetrator, in the coalition's
strikes against ISIS. As usual, when Erdogan has the chance to speak,
he does not neglect to bash PKK. Erdogan stated that the international
community behaves unjust regarding the `terror' committed by PKK, a
continuation of a previous comment when he likened PKK to ISIS.
It is interesting that Erdogan continues to use the `terror' label
whenever he mentions PKK during such a volatile time when Kurds in
Turkey have shown that without PKK there can be no peace negotiation.
AKP, Erdogan's ruling party, is aware of this seeing as they are in
negotiations with Abdullah Ã-calan, the imprisoned leader of PKK. Yet
it is understandable that Erdogan is trying so hard to create a
monster out of PKK in a moment where voices in the West have expressed
support for PKK's (and YPG, Kurdish forces in Rojava/Syrian Kurdistan)
rescue of the Yezidis and defense against ISIS in Kobanê. More and
more academics and journalists are re-evaluating the rhetoric used
when talking about PKK and YPG. Some politicians have even called for
delisting PKK from terror lists.
The Danish Foreign Minister, Martin Lidegaard, admitted that the
military aid sent from Denmark to the soldiers in Kurdistan Regional
Government might end up in the hands of YPG. The other country members
of the coalition against ISIS have also found themselves in this
dilemma. When the Western allies `indirectly' support the YPG with aid
and assistance (the US has openly said they are working with the YPG),
they are sending a strong signal that these so-called Kurdish
`terrorists' are doing something right. Erdogan is worried that this
change might amount to an international recognition of the Kurdish
people's history, suffering and freedom movement; something that
provokes him to continue his smear campaign against PKK.
Kobanê and the established confederal self-rule in Rojava is a good
example of a functioning democracy in the Middle East that promotes
women rights by use of positive discrimination. It is a system
inclusive of groups with different ethnic and religious backgrounds; a
system that defends and promotes multiculturalism and multilingualism,
for example by introducing education in every language spoken in the
region. It is a system built on freedom of thought, speech and press.
A young democracy
The situation in Rojava is more complex than portrayed above. Rojava
is a young and growing democracy and there have been incidents of
harsh crackdowns on internal opposition and critics (as reported by
Human Rights Watch in 2013).
Recently, a delegation from a Danish socialist party, the Red-Green
Alliance, visited the Cizire canton in Rojava. One of the delegates,
the political spokesperson Nikolaj Villumsen, spoke at a meeting about
how he witnessed a diverse society in blossoming, which could continue
on to be an example for Iraq and Syria, both currently marred by war
and corruption.
Søren Søndergård, another delegate, spoke of a meeting he had with the
head of Rojava's human rights commission who openly said that there
had been a number of violations of human rights in the self-ruled
region. Søndergård highlighted the importance of daring to speak of
the flaws and shortcomings of the system.
He mentioned that it is important to view Rojava in the context of
century's life under dictatorial regimes:
Units like police forces need to understand that you can get people to
talk without beatings and without torture unlike what they are used to
seeing but they know it and it takes time to understand and implement.
But it must not be the reason we refuse the democratic and socialistic
ideology behind the uprising in Rojava.
I recently read an article about PKK on an online website with
statements from a Middle East expert who described PKK as an
authoritarian and suppressive terror movement that kills civilians.
The words are like taken from Erdogan's mouth.
The article quotes a former PKK spokesperson for Scandinavia, Zeynel
Çelik, who calls PKK dictatorial and totalitarian. Çelik compares
Ã-calan to Saddam and claims that anyone who dares to criticize Ã-calan
is either killed or shunned.
The criticism of Ã-calan as the eternal leader is important but there
are stronger counter-arguments that the article failed to bring. It is
easy to name several former PKK fighters who have spoken against PKK,
conducted smear campaigns against PKK in Turkish media and helped the
Turkish intelligence in the state's fight against PKK (Å?emdin Sakık,
Abdülkadir Aygan og Adil TimurtaÅ?) who have not been killed.
Regarding Çelik's comment on being shunned, I do not have to emphasize
that it is a culture that exists and is seen in every form of
political organization. Take the Cuba-revolution as an example and
read Che Guevara's memoirs about members who turned their back on the
movement. We do not even need to go that far back. Even ordinary
political parties distance themselves from former members who conduct
smear campaigns against the party.
If PKK is so totalitarian and authoritarian, would it have progressed
as much as it has since its establishment in 1978? To me, there is a
long way from independence to self-rule and from armed struggle to
ceasefire.
The smear campaign against PKK comes in many shapes and colours but
the common denominator is fear; the fear that there will be an
international recognition of PKK's struggle and its grounds for
establishment.
Bahçeli and other Turkish politicians' racist discourse on PKK and
Erdogan's wish to eliminate PKK by using Kobanê will not be enough to
stop the Rojava revolution.
Originally for www.nudem.dk. Translated to English by Alliance for
Kurdish Rights.
The Alliance for Kurdish Rights aims to amplify diverse Kurdish
voices. Views expressed by our authors and contributors are not
necessarily our own. We welcome constructive and respectful feedback
and discussions. If you'd like to contribute to AKR, join us.
http://kurdishrights.org/2014/12/06/%E2%80%98to-deal-with-its-past-turkey-must-first-recognise-pkk%E2%80%99s-fight-for-freedom%E2%80%99/
Dec 6 2014
`To deal with its past, Turkey must first recognise PKK's fight for freedom'
by Sultan Coban
Last week's most discussed topic in Turkish media was the Dersim
Massacre of 1937-1938. The Turkish Prime Minister's visit to Dersim at
the beginning of last week ignited a heated debate about Dersim. Three
years ago, Erdogan issued a controversial apology for the Dersim
Massacre that was in a way groundbreaking. It sent a strong message to
the public seeing as former ruling parties had previously refused to
call it a massacre or genocide.
The responsibility for the Dersim Massacre lies especially with the
Republican People's Party (CHP, founded by Atatürk), which ordered the
ethnic cleansing of Kurdish clans led by Seyid Riza. Both Kurdish and
AKP-friendly crowds have criticized the current leader of CHP, Kemal
KılıçdaroÄ?lu, partly because he has hesitated upon speaking about his
own background in Dersim but especially because he as the leader of
the party behind the massacre and several other shameful events in
modern Turkish history has failed to take the responsibility upon
himself.
Following Erdogan's apology, it has been discussed on several
occasions whether the official name of the city Tunceli should be
changed to Dersim. Der-sim in Kurdish means `silver door' while
Tunc-eli means `a steel area'. Allegedly, the latter was meant to
symbolize the strength of the inhabitants. Dersim was changed to
Tunceli in 1935, just two years before the massacre.
According to the Turkish-Armenian online newspaper Bolsohays, a great
number of Armenian, Kurdish, Laz and Greek city and village names were
changed during the period between 1923, when the Republic of Turkey
was established, and 1940. The changing of names continued after 1940
when it was officially decided to change location names that did not
have roots in the Turkish language and culture. These alterations were
just a small part of the assimilation policies encompassed by the
Turkification process against the country's ethnic groups. The
Turkification process is what caused opposition from Seyh Said (1925),
Seyid Riza (1935-1938) and the PKK revolt from the beginning of the
80's until today.
Bahçeli in Dersim
Shortly after Prime Minister DavutoÄ?lu visited Dersim, the leader of
the ultra-nationalistic party, The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP),
Devlet Bahçeli announced that he, too, would pay a visit to `Tunceli'
on Friday. Prior to that, Bahçeli had expressed at a party meeting
that the objective of the Dersim Massacre was to crack down on
`hypocritical terrorists' and that he would strike them the same way
today. Bahçeli compared the Dersim resistance to PKK and called those
resisting `that time's terrorists'. It is not the first time Bahçeli
has voiced such opinions. On the contrary, this was a mild statement
compared to previous ones. However, his statement is important because
it puts the perception of Dersim shared by the majority of Turkish
politicians into words.
It is therefore not surprising that Bahçeli came with a convoy of 500
people from ElazıÄ? when he showed up in Dersim; 250 of them security
guards and police meant to protect Bahçeli from the `rage' of Dersim.
It was comical to see that Bahçeli had to cut his trip short as he was
met by protesters who obstructed the entrance of Bahçeli and his
nationalistic crowd into the city. Bahçeli was forced to give a speech
on the stairs of the governor's office where party members could
applaud his speech uninterrupted.
What About Erdogan?
Another important visit took place in Istanbul. It was the Catholic
Pope Francis' first visit to Turkey. He met with President Erdogan but
also Prime Minister DavutoÄ?lu and Mehmet Görmez, head of the Ministry
for Religious Affairs. The meetings were broadcasted live.
Both Görmez and the Pope expressed messages of peace. Görmez
especially emphasised that ISIS was a threat against the whole world,
including Islam. Görmez furthermore stated that there was a tendency
to Islamophobia in the West, saying it is just as bad as
anti-Semitism.
I noticed that Erdogan's speech focused mainly on war and chaos, among
other things speaking of ISIS who he called `Daesh.' He turned the
focus to Assad and expressed disappointment that the West has ignored
Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian war's real perpetrator, in the coalition's
strikes against ISIS. As usual, when Erdogan has the chance to speak,
he does not neglect to bash PKK. Erdogan stated that the international
community behaves unjust regarding the `terror' committed by PKK, a
continuation of a previous comment when he likened PKK to ISIS.
It is interesting that Erdogan continues to use the `terror' label
whenever he mentions PKK during such a volatile time when Kurds in
Turkey have shown that without PKK there can be no peace negotiation.
AKP, Erdogan's ruling party, is aware of this seeing as they are in
negotiations with Abdullah Ã-calan, the imprisoned leader of PKK. Yet
it is understandable that Erdogan is trying so hard to create a
monster out of PKK in a moment where voices in the West have expressed
support for PKK's (and YPG, Kurdish forces in Rojava/Syrian Kurdistan)
rescue of the Yezidis and defense against ISIS in Kobanê. More and
more academics and journalists are re-evaluating the rhetoric used
when talking about PKK and YPG. Some politicians have even called for
delisting PKK from terror lists.
The Danish Foreign Minister, Martin Lidegaard, admitted that the
military aid sent from Denmark to the soldiers in Kurdistan Regional
Government might end up in the hands of YPG. The other country members
of the coalition against ISIS have also found themselves in this
dilemma. When the Western allies `indirectly' support the YPG with aid
and assistance (the US has openly said they are working with the YPG),
they are sending a strong signal that these so-called Kurdish
`terrorists' are doing something right. Erdogan is worried that this
change might amount to an international recognition of the Kurdish
people's history, suffering and freedom movement; something that
provokes him to continue his smear campaign against PKK.
Kobanê and the established confederal self-rule in Rojava is a good
example of a functioning democracy in the Middle East that promotes
women rights by use of positive discrimination. It is a system
inclusive of groups with different ethnic and religious backgrounds; a
system that defends and promotes multiculturalism and multilingualism,
for example by introducing education in every language spoken in the
region. It is a system built on freedom of thought, speech and press.
A young democracy
The situation in Rojava is more complex than portrayed above. Rojava
is a young and growing democracy and there have been incidents of
harsh crackdowns on internal opposition and critics (as reported by
Human Rights Watch in 2013).
Recently, a delegation from a Danish socialist party, the Red-Green
Alliance, visited the Cizire canton in Rojava. One of the delegates,
the political spokesperson Nikolaj Villumsen, spoke at a meeting about
how he witnessed a diverse society in blossoming, which could continue
on to be an example for Iraq and Syria, both currently marred by war
and corruption.
Søren Søndergård, another delegate, spoke of a meeting he had with the
head of Rojava's human rights commission who openly said that there
had been a number of violations of human rights in the self-ruled
region. Søndergård highlighted the importance of daring to speak of
the flaws and shortcomings of the system.
He mentioned that it is important to view Rojava in the context of
century's life under dictatorial regimes:
Units like police forces need to understand that you can get people to
talk without beatings and without torture unlike what they are used to
seeing but they know it and it takes time to understand and implement.
But it must not be the reason we refuse the democratic and socialistic
ideology behind the uprising in Rojava.
I recently read an article about PKK on an online website with
statements from a Middle East expert who described PKK as an
authoritarian and suppressive terror movement that kills civilians.
The words are like taken from Erdogan's mouth.
The article quotes a former PKK spokesperson for Scandinavia, Zeynel
Çelik, who calls PKK dictatorial and totalitarian. Çelik compares
Ã-calan to Saddam and claims that anyone who dares to criticize Ã-calan
is either killed or shunned.
The criticism of Ã-calan as the eternal leader is important but there
are stronger counter-arguments that the article failed to bring. It is
easy to name several former PKK fighters who have spoken against PKK,
conducted smear campaigns against PKK in Turkish media and helped the
Turkish intelligence in the state's fight against PKK (Å?emdin Sakık,
Abdülkadir Aygan og Adil TimurtaÅ?) who have not been killed.
Regarding Çelik's comment on being shunned, I do not have to emphasize
that it is a culture that exists and is seen in every form of
political organization. Take the Cuba-revolution as an example and
read Che Guevara's memoirs about members who turned their back on the
movement. We do not even need to go that far back. Even ordinary
political parties distance themselves from former members who conduct
smear campaigns against the party.
If PKK is so totalitarian and authoritarian, would it have progressed
as much as it has since its establishment in 1978? To me, there is a
long way from independence to self-rule and from armed struggle to
ceasefire.
The smear campaign against PKK comes in many shapes and colours but
the common denominator is fear; the fear that there will be an
international recognition of PKK's struggle and its grounds for
establishment.
Bahçeli and other Turkish politicians' racist discourse on PKK and
Erdogan's wish to eliminate PKK by using Kobanê will not be enough to
stop the Rojava revolution.
Originally for www.nudem.dk. Translated to English by Alliance for
Kurdish Rights.
The Alliance for Kurdish Rights aims to amplify diverse Kurdish
voices. Views expressed by our authors and contributors are not
necessarily our own. We welcome constructive and respectful feedback
and discussions. If you'd like to contribute to AKR, join us.
http://kurdishrights.org/2014/12/06/%E2%80%98to-deal-with-its-past-turkey-must-first-recognise-pkk%E2%80%99s-fight-for-freedom%E2%80%99/