|
- For Turkish-Kurdish
equality, there is no other way than a federation.
This is not division, but the sharing of power. It
is the stage before an independent state. It gives
the right to separate.
- The mentality that relies on Turkish dominance in
Turkey will not ease the tension. At the same time,
no one will accept a mentality that limits Turkish
dominance. This is where the real problem lies. I do
not have any doubts that Turkey wants to take Kirkuk.
If Turkey thinks she is strong enough she won’t
hesitate. This is a very clear intention. Kurds
think like this as well.
NESE DUZEL
WHY? Serafettin Elci
Turkey’s reaction to the emergence of a possibility
for the establishment of an independent Kurdistan in
Northern Iraq again pointed to the existence of the
Kurdish question in Turkey. Ankara, and those who
support its official policy, expressed their
opinions on the events in Northern Iraq. Many
opinions from the Turkish perspective were
publicised in the media regarding this matter.
However, the opinions of Kurds in Turkey on this
matter were not publicised on the same scale.
Perhaps this single truth itself was revealing
enough of the seriousness of the Kurdish question in
Turkey. Therefore, we talked to Serafettin Elci, who
is among the most prominent Kurdish intellectuals
and well known for being frank and honest; who once
both served as minister during a period and then was
‘sentenced’ as a minister for saying “I am Kurdish’,
about how Kurds in Turkey viewed the possibility of
an independent Kurdish state being set up in
Northern Iraq, what they were expecting to be done
in Turkey, what their complaints were and what they
thought of Turkey’s Northern Iraq policy. The
Democratic Mass Party, of which Serafettin Elci was
founder and chairman, was recently closed and he is
currently in preparation to set up a new party.
Turkey is preparing to become a member of the
European Union. This means, “all citizens will
definitely be equal.” Within such conditions, do you
still find a Kurdish-Turkish differentiation
important?
If the state represents all its citizens and
protects everyone’s rights on an equal level, then a
differentiation among citizens won’t be necessary.
Don’t you support the idea of federalism anymore?
No, I still do. Peoples have the right to govern
themselves. Different peoples can live under the
same roof as partners of the state.
Isn’t the understanding of statehood based on
ethnicity, an understanding of statehood that is
outdated in this day and age?
The individuals who will best rule a certain people
in a region are the individuals who are members of
that people. Because, they will best understand that
people. They will know the circumstances, the past
[and] the geography of that people.
Can a race only be governed best by someone from
the same race?
There is no rule that a race is best governed by
someone from the same race? The model of government
is important. Because, dictators that oppress humans
also emerge from within the people. The best model
of government in our times is democracy. Within a
democratic framework, if a race is best governed by
someone from that race, than this would be the ideal
situation, instead of a foreigner governing.
If the best model of government is democracy, why
is additionally moving towards a federation the best
solution?
Equality cannot be achieved without a federation.
Because, the central government has a single
official language and a single language in
education. If you impose the language of the
dominant on the whole society as the language of
education, then there is no equality.
Wouldn’t it be enough for Turkish-Kurdish
equality if citizens whose mother tongue is not
Turkish are able to open schools that provide
education in their own languages or take it as
optional subjects like the “cultural rights” that
are in currency in the EU countries?
No, it wouldn’t be. The equality in the European
Union is in basic human rights. The recognised
rights are individual rights. These are the equal
human rights that can be required by every citizen.
Yet, one should understand the importance of group
rights. These rights should be used collectively. If
you can’t use them collectively, then you can’t say,
“You go and open your own school, if you can’t go as
an individual, and undertake your education.”
What you call an individual right, such as the
right to education in one’s mother tongue, which is
a cultural right, is already at its basic a group
right. Isn’t the most important thing that all
citizens have equal rights?
Equality can’t be achieved through empty talk. You
tell a group, “Go and carry out education with your
money in your language.” To the language and culture
of the other group, you give all the resources of
the state and the valid education in the country is
the education carried out in that language. And your
diploma has no value at all. This is not equality.
The language of that group and the education carried
out in that language has to be valid as well. In the
areas where Kurds are majority, the state should
carry out the education in Kurdish.
Would not this create a state with two official
languages?
That is the end result anyway. There will be two
official languages. This can only happen in a
federation. There can be two official languages in a
federal system. Currently, the Iraqi state has two
official languages. The language of the Catalans in
Spain is the official language only in their own
region but the Walloon and Flemish in Belgium are
both official languages. One of these paths could be
taken.
Isn’t the federal formula you are suggesting the
phase before independence? Federalism, isn’t it the
road to independence?
Of course. Federalism is the phase before an
independent state. A mutual union is established
with a free will and this also includes the right to
separate with a free will from the state. But even
if you told a citizen, who is happy with the state,
to separate, that citizen wouldn’t. Referendums were
held in Scotland and Wales and the people rejected
separation because people wanted to together benefit
from Britain’s blessings. People will look to
separate when they are uncomfortable with their
state.
During a period where states are transferring
their sovereignty, the EU being an example, how
reasonable is it to move towards tiny new states?
If everyone accepts concepts such as a European
state, European nation, or a global state and global
nation, then there won’t be any problems. But what
you suggest is, “Turks should enter the EU by
protecting their Turkishness and Kurds should enter
by abandoning their Kurdishness.”
But that is not what the EU process is about.
This is a process that changes and democratises the
structure of the state in Turkey. A system will be
established where all the citizens are equal. Isn’t
it like that?
Can you even consider the thought of Turks
abandoning their language? Would the Turks ever say
that they want English to be their language?
Why should they? Doesn’t every state in the EU
have an official language?
Exactly. If the Turks are not abandoning their
language, why shouldn’t the Kurds also want their
language to be an official language? Turkey can be
an applicant to the EU partnership as much as it
wants; Turkey does not share the same mentality with
Europe. If the European mentality becomes dominant
in Turkey as well, like in Spain then these issues
will already cease to be subject of debate.
You are Kurdish, a politician and Turkish
citizen. Your…
I am not a Turkish citizen; I am a citizen of the
Turkish Republic.
Shouldn’t you have projects and suggestions on
behalf of everyone living in the country instead of
only the Kurds? Don’t you see a lack in the
assertion, “I only produce political projects for
the Kurds.”
To defend the Kurdish cause doesn’t mean neglecting
the problems of other citizens of Turkey. But the
state has made itself such a prisoner of the Kurdish
question that, even an implementation that is known
for sure to be for the benefit of the country is
viewed with the anxiety of whether it will benefit
the Kurds as well. The mentality that relies on
Turkish dominance in Turkey will not ease the
tension. At the same time, no one will accept a
mentality that limits Turkish dominance. This is
where the real problem lies.
Is independence a secret wish of all the Kurds?
In my opinion, it is a secret wish. If every nation
has a state, this is also the wish of the Kurds. But
if within a state you have everything you think you
should have, than there is also no need for an
independent state. To have all the rights is
possible in a federal system. At any rate,
federalism is the sharing of the capacity to use
power, not the division of the state.
Kirkuk emerged as a serious problem. In your
opinion, should Kurds in Northern Iraq establish a
state that also includes Kirkuk?
Wishes and reel politics are different matters. At
this moment, reel politics is not in favour of the
Kurds establishing an independent Kurdistan. Kurds
won’t try to establish an independent Kurdistan that
America doesn’t approve. Currently, the USA does not
support an independent Kurdish state. In any case,
the Kurds in Iraq want important functions in the
central government in Baghdad. But, the Kurds have
certain demands. If these demands are met, they
won’t consider separating from Iraq.
If these demands are not met?
Then they will push for independence. The first
demand is, Kurds will not accept a state model that
is not secular, democratic and federal. The second
demand is regarding the borders of the Kurdistan
federal state. 45 thousand square km of the total 85
thousand of Kurdistan’s geography in Iraq is today
administered by the Kurds. The Kurds want the
Kurdistan geography to be within the border of the
Kurdish federal state. Kurds in Iraq will not
concede on the issue of the Kurds’ ownership of
Kirkuk. But this doesn’t mean Kirkuk will completely
become a Kurdish city. All the groups living in
Kirkuk should have a say in the Kirkuk
administration in accordance with its population.
It looks like the rights of the Turkmen
population in Kirkuk are being sidelined. Attempts
are being made to alter the demographics of the
region through bringing in Kurds from the outside.
Talking about Kurds being oppressed, are the Kurds
with their first chance now preparing to oppress
others?
I don’t think so. Barzani says, “If no one defends
Turkmen rights then I will defend it.” Majority of
Turkmens did not have any disagreement with Saddam’s
regime. Turkmens are careful not to end up in
disagreement with dominant powers. This was the case
both during period of British administration and the
monarchy. The dangerous element for Iraq’s central
government is the Kurds. If the number of Kurds
expelled by Saddam is two hundred thousand, the
number of expelled Turkmens is five, ten thousand.
No one is attempting to change the demographics of
Kirkuk.
If the demographics are not being changed, then
why was the first thing the Kurds did after the USA
occupied Iraq to loot the records of the population
registry in Kirkuk?
We don’t know if this is true or not. It is a
certain group that claims this.
Didn’t we watch this looting on the TV?
Now, something like that can happen during the
conditions that prevailed in those days. A lot of
placed were looted in Iraq. My observation based
both on my personal talks with the Kurdish leaders
and their statements is that except for the Turkmen
Front, which is a spy of Turkey, and the Turkmen
Nationalist Action Party, which is organised by the
MHP [Turkey’s Nationalist action Party, WL], Kurds
don’t have any problems at all with the Turkmen.
In that case, the federal solution you propose
for Turkey, would you propose a Kurdish-Turkmen
federation in Northern Iraq?
The condition for the Turkmen to establish a federal
structure does not exist. Because they do not have a
geographic area where they are the majority and
where they can say, “The administration of this
place should be mine.” They do not historically have
a region of which they can claim the rights. The
Turkmens are a national minority there. They cannot
be the principal founders.
Doesn’t looking at every problem through the
perspective of nationalism and race, in an age where
the world is changing rapidly, blind people in a
sense? Is it easy to grasp such a complex world by
looking at it from a single perspective?
The nation and race is a reality. The existence of
nations and races doesn’t mean the elimination of
other races. Working for the benefit of your people
and nation is a legitimate action.
Do the Kurds think that Turkey wants to take
Kirkuk?
I do not have any doubts on this matter. Kurds
believe this as well. If Turkey thinks she is strong
enough she won’t hesitate. This is a very clear
intention. The concept of retrieving lost Ottoman
lands is very widespread on both the state and
public level.
Have you considered the possibility that by
emphasising your Kurdishness like this and talking
about a federation, you have become an ally of
Turkish nationalism in a sense and established a
conservative alliance of different races?
I would not even dream of allying myself with
conservative nationalists elements. When Kurds put
forward their legitimate and just demands, there is
a type of understanding that tends to label them as
a version of Kurdish nationalism. I am of an
understanding, which is liberal social democrat.
Can’t rights be defended without emphasising race
and as “equal human rights, equal citizenship
rights?”
If this perception is correct, then there should not
be any states in the world. While some have states,
why should others be deprived? Why shouldn’t it be
one’s right to have a state?
If a Kurdish state is established in Northern
Iraq, will Turkey’s Kurdish citizens want to join
that state?
If the Kurdish citizens would be in their current
miserable state, obviously they would prefer to be
the citizens of a state just next-door belonging to
the same people. There could be those who join if
there is a developed, peaceful Kurdish state there.
But if one is happy in the current state, if one can
benefit equally from all the blessings of the state
and especially if this state is a candidate to the
EU and Kurds are able to benefit from the blessings
of Europe, why would a Kurd go and become the
citizen of a less developed small state?
There are many Turkish intellectuals who say
let’s abandoned the Kurd-Turk division and everyone
becomes equal. You,…
No there aren’t. There are many Turkish
intellectuals who do not pursue racist nationalism
but they are in reality “cultural nationalists.”
Because the argument they defend is, “Okay Kurds are
our equal brothers but they should be like Turks.
Everyone should be equal as Turks.” However, the
issue is to see as equal what is different from you,
to be equals as Kurds and Turks.
Many Turkish intellectuals defend equality
without at all emphasising their Turkishness. Among
Kurdish intellectuals on the other hand these kinds
of inclusive opinions are not heard that much. In
your opinion, why is it so important to be a Kurd?
It is a matter of belonging, defending your nation.
Kurds do not like Turkish nationalism and have
suffered immensely from it, yet isn’t there a double
standard in the way Kurdish nationalism is exalted?
There is nothing like exalting nationalism among
Kurds. Kurds do not claim to be dominant over
others.
Will the Kurdish nationalists in Northern Iraq do
to Turkmens what Turkish nationalist have done to
the Kurds, once they become dominant?
If they do, then we will before everyone and more
than anyone be against this. We won’t be quite just
because we are Kurds.
As a Kurdish politician and citizen of Turkey,
would you prefer the dream of becoming the president
of the Turkish Republic to the dream of becoming the
president of a federal Kurdish state?
If as a Kurd, I have the possibility of becoming the
president of the Republic of Turkey, than I would
prefer this to becoming the president of a Kurdish
federal state. But as a Kurd, not by becoming a
Turk. Saying, “I am Kurdish, my origins are Kurdish”
is not enough. My language should be valid like
Turkish. In a federal system, Kurds will get the
chance to become Turkey’s president. Look at
Talabani, he is saying, “I want to become the
president of Iraq.”
Isn’t there any other way than the federal system
to achieve Turkish-Kurdish equality?
I don’t think there is. As long as the official
ideology based on the state’s Turkism ideology is
not abandoned, talking about Turkish-Kurdish
equality is absurd…
The above interview was published in the Turkish
daily
Radikal on the 14th of February, 2005, and
was translated for
www.kurdishMedia.com from the Turkish
original by Welat Lezgin.
Received by Kurd Net via Email, and mostly has been
taken from
www.kurdishmedia.com
See also Serafettin Elci: Kurds need to assure Turks
Top |
® 