Zaman, Turkey
25 Oct. 2004
ETYEN MAHCUPYAN
“Minority” in the Report
Do you think it is possible to progress on the European Union (EU) path
without understanding the fact that a national policy can only be
composed with the help of a combined willpower filtered by communal
discussion?
That EU already exists as a concrete expression of this political
concept with its process of existence and constitution. However, Turkey
is not able to escape from the vicious circle forcing it to depend on
“the divine format.”
Hence, the political preferences that emerged in the first years of
Republic seem to have determined the future of this country
everlastingly.
Therefore, it cannot be admitted that each of the said principles of
existence are political choices, and the Republic that is obliged to
carry the temporary social consensus of the changing demands, should
turn into a burden laden with a divine subject on our shoulders.
“The minority” concept is one of the most outstanding features of this
concept…
According to the official expression, the word “minority” includes only
Greeks, Jewish and Armenian community members in conformity with the
Lausanne Peace Treaty.
Kurds and Alevis are not included in this definition since Lausanne
does not mention them.
How can a country misinterpret its own founding agreement on purpose?
However, it happens in our country. Lausanne directly refers to some
sort of rights for all Turkish citizens, other than the definition of
minority for all non-Muslims, without giving a name to the community.
If you seriously consider all the rights specified for all Turkish
citizens in Lausanne, you can neither ban the Kurdish language nor
indirectly impose Alevi religious practices. In short, the Turkish
Republic has systematically ignored Lausanne.
Whereas, the “minority” concept nowadays is presented within a
different framework and perceived as an extension of a democratic
outlook.
Any community that shows signs of deficiency towards a part
power-dominant, standing outside the dominant ethnic, religious and
cultural part in a community, and is able to produce a specific
cultural identity for itself, is called a “minority.”
It is possible to call it “objective minority” because it gives the
said community a definition outside.
Of course, there is something about how a community feels, positions
itself and where it sees itself: We might call that “subjective
minority.”
The existence of a political minority is only available when both the
objective and subjective minority facts go along together.
Henceforth, Kurds and Alevis cannot consider themselves as minorities.
No one force them to define themselves as minorities.
But the EU explicitly and objectively perceives them as minorities…
They both have unique and cultural identities independent of the
dominant culture and are in a secondary position under the sovereign
culture.
Turkey seems to have changed some sentences since it does not like the
“minority” expression in the EU [Progress] Report.
Why were we perturbed by Kurds and Alevis being called minorities?
It must have been to resist the Western world’s opportunity of
intervening and not to step back from our “ancient” position.
Yet, there is an odd situation here because the minorities according to
international law definition have no right to decide their own destiny,
but the communities that are not regarded as minorities have.
I am very curious: Does Turkey really know what it is doing and why it
is defending what?
To be honest, as one who defends Kurdish people being equal, I do not
object to Turkey’s position on this.
However, if anyone does not know what it means, there are crucial
problems before since it will not be very easy to keep them under the
sovereign identity and at the same time not give the Kurds and Alevis a
minority status.
–Boundary_(ID_jeLkmjg/JKuQFAjUQk7DkA)–