BEHIND MAJOR CHANGES FOR TURKEY’S KURDS
by Harry Sterling
Embassy MAgazine
ng-1-21-2009
Jan 21 2009
Canada
It was television no one had ever seen before. For the first time in
history, starting Jan. 1, the people of Turkey could watch TV programs
24 hours a day in Kurdish, which had once been totally banned from
that country’s television networks.
It was an unprecedented step forward for Turkey’s 12-14 million Kurds,
whose very existence ultra-nationalist Turks once denied.
This month’s dramatic breakthrough for the Kurdish population was only
one remarkable development within a society which is increasingly
undergoing dramatic changes, changes welcomed by many Turks while
vociferously rejected by others.
Those changes, often unpredictable and divisive, have long-term
implications for the democratic process in Turkey, particularly greater
respect for human rights and freedom of speech in a society where even
today members of parliament can be imprisoned for allegedly disparaging
"Turkishness."
The changes set in motion have direct ramifications for Turkey’s
prospect of ever joining the European Union; the possibility Greek and
Turkish Cypriots will reach an agreement on a peaceful settlement of
the Cyprus issue and an end to Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus;
and the expansion of Turkish influence in the Middle East, including
facilitating a lessening of tension between Israel and such countries
as Syria.
Many of the changes percolating within Turkish society are linked to
the electoral victory of the Islamic-rooted Justice and Development
Party (AK) of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which came to
power in 2002 and was re-elected with a sweeping majority in 2007.
Despite widespread distrust of the AK Party’s Islamic background,
especially amongst ultra-nationalists and the military,
Mr. Erdogan initiated a series of political and social reforms that
permitted greater protection for basic human rights, including for
minorities. (He was also receptive to Greek efforts to lessen tension
between the two NATO allies over territorial disputes and Cyprus.)
Although cynics saw Erdogan’s reforms based primarily on the
need to meet stipulated standards required by the European Union
for EU applicants, others saw his actions reflecting a society
increasingly more open and sophisticated due to Turkey’s growing
economic prosperity.
That sectors of Turkish society were truly opening up became obvious
recently when 200 intellectuals dared to organize an Internet signature
campaign to apologize for the mass killings of Armenians during the
Ottoman Empire.
Although the statement referred to the "Great Catastrophe that the
Armenians were subjected to in 1915…"–carefully avoiding the term
"Armenian genocide"–the fact over 26,000 people signed the petition
in a matter of days is a remarkable development in a country where
the large-scale killing of Turkey’s Armenian population has been a
taboo subject.
Interestingly, while Prime Minister Erdogan was seen by many as a
politician prepared to acknowledge some of Turkey’s shortcomings,
including his public admission that Turkish governments had treated
the Kurds unfairly and harshly and he would personally end most
restrictions imposed on them, his tolerance for an unfettered
discussion of the Armenian issue clearly had its limits.
He dismissed the apology movement, mocking the organizers. With the
sole exception of the Kurdish-based Democratic Turkey Party, all the
opposition parties denounced the intellectuals’ apology campaign.
Although Erdogan’s actions to reduce restrictions on the use of Kurdish
have been welcomed, some regard such changes as the new Kurdish TV
channel as based on a desire to counteract propaganda disseminated by a
pro-Kurdish TV station, Roj, operating from Denmark. Roj is described
as an arm of the Kurdistan Workers Party, PKK, an insurgent movement
which last year escalated guerrilla attacks on Turkish military units,
resulting in numerous casualties. Still others see Erdogan’s Kurdish
reforms as simply a tool to win votes; the AK actually won over half
the votes in Kurdish areas during the 2007 election.
One area which preoccupies some is diminished support amongst Turks
towards joining the European Union, plus a dramatic increase in
anti-American sentiment because of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Israel’s invasion of Gaza resulted in large-scale anti-Israeli
demonstrations in Turkey, raising calls for Turkey to end military
co-operation with Tel Aviv and causing Erdogan to strongly criticize
the Olmert government for endangering Turkey’s mediation efforts
between Syria and Israel. Some in Turkey have always opposed relations
with Israel, including joint military exercises, and favour breaking
diplomatic links, concentrating instead on expanding relations with
Arab and Muslim nations. Such a move would not be welcomed by the
United States, seeing Turkey as a buffer against Islamic extremism.
As if the situation weren’t already complicated enough, a number of
ultra-nationalists and former military officers have been arrested for
allegedly attempting to provoke a military coup against the Erdogan
government. Ultra-nationalists and others within the entrenched secular
elite have already tried to have the constitutional court ban Erdogan
and the AK Party for violating the secular state, the Court effectively
warning the AK to change its ways or face being declared illegal.
Some claim such recent actions directed against Erdogan have
diminished his commitment to promote further reforms in order to
appease opponents, especially the military, perceived as wanting a
tougher line towards Kurdish militancy and PKK insurgents based in
northern Iraq’s Kurdistan province.
Whereas many within the global community are convinced reforms and
meaningful changes are necessary to deal with the current problems
confronting various societies, in Turkey, change can be a highly
divisive issue with no one sure where that country’s current changes
will ultimately lead.
Harry Sterling, a former diplomat, is an Ottawa-based commentator. He
served in Turkey.