The death toll from the past two weeks of violent clashes between Kurdish protesters and Turkish police rose by 20 on April 8. More than 350 people (199 of them police) were injured and 500 others detained. They were the latest victims of a wave of rioting that began in Diyarbakir, the biggest city in the country's mainly Kurdish southeast, and rapidly spread throughout the region and later to Sakarya, Istanbul, Mersin and Erzincan. Further, separatist Kurdish militants of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) killed at least seven soldiers and a police officer in Turkey's southeast in the wake of the deadly Kurdish riots.
The majority in various circles (government, authorities, military, politicians, mass media, intellectuals, etc.) in Turkey first voiced condemnation of the PKK, which instigated the terrorism and violence, and secondly blamed the Democratic Society Party (DTP) and especially Diyarbakir Mayor Osman Baydemir.
For my part, I have some observations on what happened:
First: Despite the strife being instigated by the PKK, we are plunging into a new phase of violence not only in rural zones but also in townships and cities (see Ilnur Cevik's April 5 TNA article).
Second: Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan acknowledged that there is a "Kurdish problem" and that it is at the same time his problem. The Erdogan government seems lost in this spiral of violence (also see Cevik's article).
Third: When talking about the second intifada in Palestine, Ayse Karabat wrote, "Once upon a time, there would be what I called the 2:15 p.m. clashes. They were almost every day, at the same time and in the same places. First a group of young men would arrive. They would mask their faces with T-shirts or a piece of cloth. Then another group would approach, rolling car tires in order to burn them. When you watched them you could see fierce anger coming from their bodies. These young people were angry about everything. They thought that there was no future for them. They thought that they were victims of discrimination and that this discrimination was rooted in all circumstances that they were born into. As time went by, when their throats tired of shouting slogans, they would start to throw stones because they strongly believed that the only solutions they had on hand were stones. While this was happening, politicians from both sides had no intention of solving the problems; they would just accuse each other."
I can see this socio-political phenomenon as similar to the behavior of teenagers in Diyarbakir and believe it is very important to learn lessons from it.
Four: The terrorist PKK is trying to attract the attention of Western countries, especially the U.S. This behavior is typical of the narrow minded. By doing so, the PKK is carrying a huge stone in its hand. As the Palestinians say, it is hard to throw big stones.
Five: Let us remain grounded in reality. We as intellectuals should differentiate ourselves from politicians by our handling or approach to any problem. Indeed the PKK from time to time commits terrorist acts. Despite (or besides) its terrorist background it has also other tools (political, social, diplomatic, etc.) for realizing its goal. Further its goal is on the whole a political one. According to the criteria of Maurice Duverger, the prominent French jurist and scholar on socio-political issues, parties and societies like the PKK are considered political organizations. On the other hand, in the eyes of some Kurds, at least those who are uprising in the region, despite the PKK being a hoodlum and tough one at that, it however protects the honor and morality of the quarter or as said in Turkish, "Kulhanbeyidir, kabadayidir ama mahallenin namusunu da koruyor."
Winning the hearts of the Kurdish people and isolating the terrorist PKK is possible only by putting our fingers on the real issues and Kurdish causes, by making the people the real counterpart and the real subject of the question.
Therefore, accusing the PKK of resorting to terrorism is not enough to help us to solve the Kurdish question. Recent incidents have demonstrated what this organization is still capable of.
Six: The worst thing is that neither political parties nor the political elite (including intellectuals and the mass media) in Turkey are aware of the multi-dimensional character of the Kurdish question and the Kurdish reality.
Seven: We should accept that the unsolved Kurdish problem and a narrow-minded nationalistic approach to it have caused an enormous gulf between our two peoples and this will not change overnight.
The deteriorating relationship between all sides has brought the necessity to bring leaders and personalities together to find solutions to the hatred and misunderstanding (And further for a mutual commitment to dialogue) that have existed until now. This is the responsibility of key figures like Ahmet Turk (co-chair of the DTP) and Osman Baydemir. This is because they seem to be able to bridge dialogue between the PKK and the Kurds, and between the state and the Kurds. By making them the principal targets of war makers, we are destroying potential channels of communication.
Eight: Instead of finding ways to establish some form of dialogue with the DTP or with respected local leaders among the Kurds, the government (including the mass media and politicians) are blaming, accusing and even alienating them. There are those who speak in loud voices that have only developed the ways and tools of killing and terrorism.
For some Kurdish figures, requests by the state to lay down arms are utter nonsense. As any state, which has a military monopoly, without their arms they haven't a raison d'etre. We can therefore ask only of any organization to lay down arms and at the same time for the state to stop using arms to find a good solution.
Nine: Speaking sociologically, every contact between two persons in any society is a kind of dialogue. Therefore war, military struggle, terrorism and violence between sides in any conflict is considering the contact, and therefore an indirect (or unfortunate) dialogue. The important thing here is to find a peaceful way of connection, like a "back channel" between people. This is not a round table negotiation and rather than being a conversation as in the French "pourparle," a means for connection. In this way I believe that dialogue does not mean an official negotiation between two sides, but instead building a bridge of dialogue and discovering reality and mutual respect.
Amos Oz, a founder of the group Peace Now in Israel, said, "It is useless to sublimate our pains unilaterally because it is our common injury. It is useless also shaking fingers at each in a threatening way. Instead we must invite each other to have a coffee and share our problems."
As a result we should know that there can be no winner but only losers in any dirty game. The way to connection and dialogue is not founded on downgrading the other's problems but on upgrading them. |