|
Ahmet Turk's speech at the 4th
International Conference on EU, Turkey and the Kurds
5.12.2007
|
|
|
|
December
5, 2007
Fourth international conference on EU, Turkey and
the Kurds. European Parliament, Brussels
3/4 December 2007
Turkey, since the beginning of reform and
modernisation, has diverted its efforts towards a
new democratic structure with the aim of EU
accession. I believe that Turkey’s attempt of
accession into the EU is the fourth most important
strategic decision in the history of the republic.
The first decision is the strategic cooperation of
the Turks and Kurds in building a country which
materialises itself in the creation of the republic.
This joint decision of the people is certainly
historic one. What is achieved here is the joint
determination in creating a country which upholds
the equality and freedom of each citizen.
The post-republic strategic cooperation between the
Kurds and Turks is the second strategically
significant decision. This is the period of
1921-1924 and at this present time this period is
looked at as the “golden age”. The first parliament
was deemed to be a joint parliament of Kurds and
Turks. |
The pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP)
deputy Ahmet Turk |
Representation was
according to identity and region. In fact Mustafa
Kemal himself believed that the Kurds should be
allowed a special status and even made the statement
“a type of village headmanship” (the most local type
of government). This is a most notable period we can
refer to, to tackle current problems and debates.
The third significant strategic decision is: within
the atmosphere stated above instead of furthering
the republic democratically, the strategic
cooperation with the Kurds was cut short and the
period of conflict began.www.ekurd.net
The decision for an
oligarchic republic is an unfortunate decision that
is yet to be rectified. For 80 years this is the
period we have been unable to change, bring to an
end or even made enough effort to rectify this
painful and hostile republic period. I cannot
continue without stressing the role of the
responsibilities of certain influential
international powers of the time who are in fact now
members of the EU. The Kurdish problem was left
right in the middle like a corpse and was sacrificed
in the pursuit of international interests.
What I am about to talk about is a chance for
redemption for the mistakes of the past; this is the
fourth significant strategic decision. European
countries must be able to redeem themselves for the
mistakes they have made in the past against not only
the Kurdish people but against the Turkish people as
well. For the first time in the history of the
republic Turkey mad a strategic decision towards the
aim of democracy; this was membership to the EU.
This is the most important decision in turning away
from the chaos and mentality of the Middle East and
making a move towards western civilisation. Since
the day of its creation our country has not been
able to solve its social and structural problems and
has not been able to solve the conflicts arising
from these problems within a democratic framework.
However, eventually it has materialised its efforts
to modernise through the intention of EU membership.
To this end, it has made changes at the level of
reform. This process must continue. However, we know
that the efforts of external dynamics will not be
enough on its own to implement the fourth strategic
decision to institutionalise a diverse democracy. At
exactly this point I would like to refer to the
fifth significant decision that Turkey now has to
make. The makers of this decision are our peoples.
This is the question: will a togetherness of a
thousand years and a strategic cooperation of 500
years be revitalised within the framework of modern
values? Or, will there be a split as a result of
deepened conflict?
This strategic decision will be taken by our
peoples. I repeat, unity through cooperation, or,
complete separation?
The Prime Minister asks us “make your preference,
take your decision”, it is not as easy as this. We,
on the one hand, are talking about the time for the
Kurds and Turks to make a strategic decision, the
Prime Minister, on the other hand, is still in the
pursuit of basic daily political interests.
Us Kurds believe in a solution within democratic
unity and making policies to this end. If a meaning
is given to our presence in the parliament, then it
should be within the framework of our passion for
unity. DTP should be recognised as the strongest
legal representatives of the Kurds who have had a
problem defining themselves within the republic that
has had trouble with democratization.www.ekurd.net
Our ideology has a
single aim and that is to democratise this republic
that we created together and to reignite the
Kurdish-Turkish unity on the grounds of modern
values. Within parliamentary politics we should take
on board our joint history and values, while not
using our sensitivities as mere tools for political
gain but rather approaching them with care so that
we can achieve veracity in parliament. Our hope is
for others to approach us in this way.
Unfortunately, since the very beginning, primarily
through the Prime Minister, we have been bombarded
with calls of “terror -condemnation” in order to not
be able to produce policies. Actually, our view on
violence is extremely clear. Once again I do not
hesitate to declare that we are against political
violence of all means, whoever or wherever it comes
from. Our era does not accept politics as a means
for political progress. We do not approve of
violence as a means to a solution. However, we do
acknowledge that there is a social problem that
causes violence, namely the Kurdish problem;
however, we believe it should reach a democratic
solution. If we do not offer politics as a route to
a solution for our people then we cannot prevent the
violence.
The DTP’s role cannot be overlooked. We offer the
Kurdish people a route to solve their problems,
which range from the cultural to the economic,
through a legal mechanism. It is evident that if we
did not exist then this people will always find a
way to express itself. The prudence the DTP has
created cannot be overlooked.
We entered the elections to offer civil advice for
the solution to Turkey’s basic problems. We were
chosen and therefore took up a very important and
responsible role. We possess the will and the will
power to solve the Kurdish problem within the
framework of democracy and compromise. However, we
are yet to find an appropriate addressee. DTP is
principled enough and confident enough to not accept
any preconditions. Pressure on degenerating the DTP
to something it is not is unacceptable. We have to
play our role within our political identity.
Our projects for a solution are waiting for their
addressees. The base for a civil and democratic
solution has been created through the admission
talks of accession into the EU. A definition of
citizenship without the use of ethnicity is a big
step towards success. Alongside Turkish as the
official and education language, Kurdish must also
be constitutionally guaranteed as a language of
education. Freedom of expression and association,
political party and election laws should be
rearranged in accordance with EU norms. Local
government reforms should immediately be in
accordance with EU local government conditioning and
a transfer of certain central powers to the local
governments should be ensured. In this sense the
changes in the administrative mechanism should be
made. The EU should play its responsible role buy
supporting and lobbying these changes to go through.
It has been speculated that the DTP’s proposal of a
democratic and cultural autonomy is not adaptable to
Turkey’s democracy. However, this is a process. If
the democratic reforms and social change widens, our
proposal will be better understood and appropriate.
We believe in democratic unity and it is our belief
that our proposal of democratic autonomy is a
unifying project. It carries similarities with the
EU, and with certain EU countries and their
practice.
I need to put forward one final thing. If politics
is a rational phenomenon than we need to adapt our
proposals and foresights according to this. If the
PKK and Abdullah Ocalan are not seen as part of the
problem and are not incorporated into the process of
a solution, then we cannot be sure of a solution,
because it is not possible. We have to take note of
someone that has the sympathy of Millions and an
organisation with the manpower of 6-7 thousand armed
fighters. I do not see this as a problem of
addressees or legitimacy. However, a solution
without Ocalan and the PKK has been a policy for
years but has not even hinted at a successful
option. However much we term them as
“terror-terrorist”, we cannot deny that they are
without a doubt holders of an important political
and military significance. With this rationale, we
must find a way in which the armed fighters can be
included into this democratic process.www.ekurd.net
This in the same time
will ensure the unity of Kurds and Turks as the
rationalisation of the past takes place. We must put
trust in the path of intellect and knowledge…
We may not be of the same religion, or speak the
same language, but we share the same world and the
same philosophy of peace. You should have no concern
regarding our passion to modernise the values of the
humanist philosophy for which Jesus Christ had
sacrificed himself for. If we want to be judged by
God with lesser sins, then we must be as passionate
as Jesus in working hard to ensure the honoured
peace between the peoples.
Ahmet Turk
**
Kurds are not recognized as an official minority in
Turkey and are denied rights granted to other
minority groups. Under EU pressure, Turkey recently
granted Kurds limited rights for broadcasts and
education in the Kurdish language, but critics say
the measures do not go far enough.
The use of the term "Kurdistan" is vigorously
rejected due to its alleged political implications
by the Republic of Turkey, which does not recognize
the existence of a "Turkish Kurdistan" Southeast
Turkey.
Others estimate over 40 million Kurds live in
Big Kurdistan (Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Armenia),
which covers an area as big as France, about half of
all Kurds which estimate to 20 million live in
Turkey.
Turkey is home to over 25 million ethnic Kurds, some
of whom openly sympathise with the Kurdish PKK for a
Kurdish homeland in the country's mainly Kurdish
southeast of Turkey.
Before August 2002, the Turkish government placed
severe restrictions on the use of Kurdish language,
prohibiting the language in education and broadcast
media.
The Kurdish alphabet is still not recognized
in Turkey, and use of the Kurdish letters X, W, Q
which do not exist in the Turkish
alphabet has led to judicial persecution in 2000 and
2003
The Kurdish flag flown officially in Iraqi Kurdistan
but unofficially flown by Kurds in Armenia. The flag
is banned in Iran, Syria, and Turkey where flying it
is a criminal offence"
Southeastern Turkey:
North Kurdistan (
Kurdistan-Turkey)
wikipedia
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 