The International Community and the PKK conflict
Kurdishaspect.com - By Raz Jabary
For those who doubt the role of the International Community in the Kurdish issue, I would like to refer to my talks addressing British sixth form students in school on the Kurdish issue in the Middle East.
The first talk I conducted was a purely basic informative one on who the Kurds are, where their land is and what they are struggling for. Shockingly, not a single student was aware of the issues and their first confrontation with these facts led them to having many questions like “What can Britain do to help the Kurds?” and “Did the Kurds rule over themselves before their homeland was formally divided [in 1923]?”.
Initial brainstorming ideas started to circulate through the minds of the students and one of them suggested why “Iraq would not give the Kurds their own land so that Turkey, Iran and Syria were persuaded to follow?”.
Given the wide unawareness in the underlying issues of this Kurdish conflict among citizens of countries which are part of the International Community, it is not strange to think why the Kurdish issue seems so neglected and why there is limited support from outside for the ambitions of the Kurds as a nation.
Although many Kurds feel the International Community has left them from supporting their causes in the past, there have been notable influences from outside on drastic aspects that have had a complex impact on the Kurdish issue like the EU-pressure on Turkey concerning the violation of human rights in regard to the Kurdish question and the ease in state punishment in regard to having turned the death penalty into a life long sentence for PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan and other sentenced PKK fighters.
The PKK has been fighting for Kurdish ambitions in the past 23 years and has achieved the spreading of awareness of the Kurdish identity among Kurds in Northern-Kurdistan and clearly been a huge incentive in the rise to modern Kurdish nationalism. However, it may be clear from decades of fighting that neither the Turkish military can claim the defeat of the vastly mobile units of PKK fighters operating in remote areas without a capital city, headquarter complex or anything concrete to target, nor can the PKK claim victory over the Turkish military; a scene we have seen in Northern-Ireland between IRA rebels and the British military and a clear indication of the complexity of guerrilla warfare.
One might be wondering why the PKK for this reason does not put down its arms and end its violent struggle? However, it will not be possible for the party to continue its struggle even after disarmament, simply because the Turkish public and Turkish government would not accept a successful tail to the PKK struggle, and, any exclusive Kurdish struggles existing then would be affiliated to the PKK movement, just like presently is the case with the DTP, leading to an even stricter ruling against Kurdish national ambitions. The PKK Higher Command is clearly aware of this phenomenon and fears an end to its saying in the Kurdish issue after a potential disarmament.
If it is not by means of violent struggle and not by means of a peaceful continuation of the PKK as a political party after disarmament for the conflict to be resolved, the solution lies in the arbitration between the Turkish government and representatives of the desires of the Kurdish people in Turkey to allow for a democratic say of the Kurds being able to legitimately back a political party that represents their views. This would result in the ousting of the PKK by the Kurds themselves and undermine their role in the Kurdish issue.
A similar approach has been taken in the Palestinian issue where Israel stood prepared to negotiate with the legitimate Fattah party, but undermined the activities of Hamas. Israel made this move after intense pressure from the International Community towards resolving the Palestinian issue. However, Hamas still enjoys fiercer support from the Palestinian people because the Palestinians see Fattah as co-operatives acting in favour of the Israeli government.
However, can we regard the reasoning of the Palestinians as just and could it be that both Israel and Turkey do not want to see a real solution to the Palestinian and Kurdish issue respectively and that they therefore do not allow for effective negotiation with representatives who truly struggle in favour of the desires of the Kurdish and Palestinian people in order to oust violent movements like the PKK and Hamas?
It is clear that a contribution has to be made from both sides to resolve a conflict like that of the PKK [by peaceful means]. This requires mutual recognition between the parties involved and the essential recognition that there is indeed a conflict to be resolved. A contrary stance to this which was recently publicly expressed by Mehmed Gyudjuk, the Turkish ambassador to Bulgaria, who claimed that ‘there was no such thing as a Kurdish issue in Turkey’, is of no use to finding a lasting solution for this decade old and deadly conflict.
Turkey should know that by carrying out cross-border operations it only increases its enmity in the region and acquires an increasingly disgusted view among Kurds in Southern Kurdistan who feel threatened and fear the stable and peaceful build-up of their region after the ousting of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. In the same way, PKK commander Bahoz Erdal whom recently called for uproar among Kurdish youth in Northern Kurdistan and main Turkish cities will only implement hatred towards the Kurds among the Turkish people. Actions like these only provoke more violence and are no solutions to problems like these which require long-term solutions; something clearly the International Community could have a major role to play in.
To learn more about the author see:
___________________
 | ||||
Menu
February 27, 2008
News
| ||||
| ||||
Sponsors
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||||
