The Government, Intellectuals and the Kurdish Question
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
 
Other articles
 

Under the conditions of an offensive concept which was recently announced by the fascist general I. Basbug against the Kurdish people, national and revolutionary movement, the Prime Minister of Turkey, R. Tayyip Erdogan declared that he accepts "the Kurdish question". He met with the Turkish intellectuals who urged from PKK to "give an end immediately and without preconditions to armed actions" and is continuing to occupy the agenda.

T. Erdogan preferred to meet with the Turkish intellectuals who are tendered to be tied behind the state through their statements and political stances, and who contain social-chauvinist influences. He did not invite especially the liberal or reformist Kurdish intellectuals who supported the statement. But, at the same time, he asked Adalet Agaoglu -a "leftist" and novel writer-, who recently resigned from membership of IHD (Human Rights Association) by accusing the organisation with propagating separatism and supporting the PKK, to be in the meeting and honoured her. This situation was understandable, because he needed to point out the "Kurdish question" in his Diyarbakir- speech and to the tongue twister slogan of official policy; "one country, one state and one nation".

The statements of T. Erdogan attracted all the attentions. Because the AKP (Justice and Development Party) government and T. Erdogan were considering the Kurdish question as "a fictitious question" and were saying "if you do not think of it then there will be no Kurdish question". This "change" happened in a few months has had to be explained.

The other question was the relations between the announced offensive concept and his meeting with the Turkish intellectuals who published a "peace communique" before his trip to Kurdistan's capital Diyarbakir, mentioning the "Kurdish question" and his acceptance of "some wrongdoings in the past". Did all these statements point at contradictions between the AKP government and the clique of generals?

Can it be a kind of onset for talks which will start with EU on 3 October?

Was it the USA's policy on the Middle East and the Kurdish question led them to make such a statement?

In the history of the Kurdish national liberation struggle, similar statements are made many times. During the Lausanne agreement in 1921, I. Inonu said "we are the representatives of the Turkish and Kurdish people". In 1993, T. Ozal said "we can even discuss on a federation with Kurds", while S. Demirel was saying "we recognize the Kurdish reality". And M. Yilmaz said "accession to the EU passes from Diyarbakir".

It is possible to find common sides in all of these statements: The statements never include the breaking and overcoming of the Turkish bourgeois state's annihilation and denial policy. As a result of the will and pressure of the Kurdish national movement, from time to time they include messages which create expectations and distractions. So, the Kurds are accepted as individuals but not as a nation. And all these statements remain only in words; they do not include initiatives and practices that would meet the Kurds' national and democratic demands.

The statement of the Prime Minister, T. Erdogan, was able to put PKK and some liberal circles into new expectations. PKK stressed that it deliberately welcomed the statement and founded it positive. But it also added that it expects practical steps. PKK stated that, as a step of goodwill, it converts from active defence to passive defence between the dates of 20 August and 20 September.

Ok, but which developments led T. Erdogan to make this statement?

In June 2004, PKK ended the one-sided ceasefire which it had continued for 5 years. It said that, during this period, the state has delayed the Kurdish national movement through its policy of "neither war nor peace", and therefore the state has to take steps in accordance with democratic demands. With their actions, PKK guerrillas caused losses for the Turkish army on unexpected levels. The provoked chauvinism and nationalism in Turkey led to be reach to dangerous dimensions together with lynch attempts. Strong signs of Turkish and Kurdish conflicts have appeared. This situation could have unstoppably speeded up the Kurdistan's split from Turkey.

Despite all impositions and tactical manoeuvres of the colonialist regime, the USA did not target the PKK's armed forces. The Kurds' process of "being a state" in Iraq went speedily further. The colonialist Turkish regime's "red lines" towards Iraqi Kurdistan became pink. The heads of Turkish soldiers were covered with sacks by USA soldiers. The Kurds in Iran and Syria upraised. In short, the political conditions, relations of power and dynamics of development in Turkey, Iraq and Middle East have led the fascist regime, at least the organisation of big capital TUSIAD and AKP to react in different directions and searches. The other important factor is that the AKP wants to regain the initiative that it has lost against the generals in governing the country.

Under these conditions 150 Turkish intellectuals have published a "peace communiquE9". In this communiquE9 they said "Our people should not die anymore, we must live in peace and have a just life. We want PKK to give an immediate and without preconditioned end to the armed actions. We demand the government (85) to introduce the necessary legal regulations." They even did not asked from fascist Turkish state, which restarted to show the examples of dirty and dark war through massacres and cruelty, to stop its offensive and operations. Some Kurdish intellectuals declared their support for the statement of the Turkish intellectuals by saying "we expect from government to stop immediately the military operations and to start the peace process in order to give an end to disputable atmosphere".

And the revolutionary and socialist intellectuals, who did not reconcile the statements with the attitude of a honourable intellectual attitude, in the same process, have published a communique "against militarism and chauvinism": They made a statement reconciling with their historical and political responsibilities by saying "The source of the violence is the state it self. Therefore, looking for a responsible for the violence in other address rather than the state will be incompatible both with intellectual's conscience and his/her scientific realistic identity (85) We are announcing that we will not let our people's horizon to be darkened and will not hesitate to serve responsibility which the life and society is expecting from an intellectual.

We call on the working class movement, all democratic mass organisations, labourers and all oppressed of the society to act as a united front and to struggle in common."

In the face of these developments, PKK wanted to announce in Brussels its decision for a month of ceasefire. The decision means converting from the position of active defence to passive defence for a month period. AKP government asked from Belgium government to arrest Kongra-Gel President, Z. Aydar -who was going to make a press conference against the statements of T. Erdogan- and to ban his press conference. Later the press conference is banned. In the same period, A. Ocalan's brother was not allowed to visit him in the prison for invented reasons. After the MGK (National Security Council) meeting on 23 August, the offence and prohibitions extended. New court cases demanding 10 years of imprisonment were opened against DEHAP leaders and they were banned from going oversees because of saying "Dear" Ocalan. A court case opened against the President of Diyarbakir Municipal, Osman Baydemir because of allocating a municipal-owned vehicle to transport death body of a guerrilla.

MLCP thinks that the T. Erdogan's statements cannot be considered separately from the annihilation and denial policy against the Kurdish nation. This statement is a part of the current wave of offence on the Kurdish people and the revolutionary movement; is the requirement of towing the Turkish intellectuals and liberal sectors of society.

The revolutionary popular solution is the solution of the Kurdish question. Political conjuncture we live in is offering important historical and political opportunities, possibilities and dynamics. MLCP repeats its call to increase the united struggle of the Turkish and Kurdish people on the colonialist regime's dirty and delaying tactics, and on the wave of chauvinist offence.

MLCP fights for the Turkish and Kurdish people's free, equal and voluntary federative unity. In order to realize this principal demand, it continues to organise independent actions with actual concrete demands such as a democratic and honoured peace, for the political representation of the Kurds and education in mother-tongue (in Kurdish), and points out the essentiality of waging a united struggle with national movement and other revolutionary and progressive forces.
 

 

Archive

 

2020
January
2019
December November
October September
August July
June May
April March
February

 

The Government, Intellectuals and the Kurdish Question
fc Share on Twitter
 

Under the conditions of an offensive concept which was recently announced by the fascist general I. Basbug against the Kurdish people, national and revolutionary movement, the Prime Minister of Turkey, R. Tayyip Erdogan declared that he accepts "the Kurdish question". He met with the Turkish intellectuals who urged from PKK to "give an end immediately and without preconditions to armed actions" and is continuing to occupy the agenda.

T. Erdogan preferred to meet with the Turkish intellectuals who are tendered to be tied behind the state through their statements and political stances, and who contain social-chauvinist influences. He did not invite especially the liberal or reformist Kurdish intellectuals who supported the statement. But, at the same time, he asked Adalet Agaoglu -a "leftist" and novel writer-, who recently resigned from membership of IHD (Human Rights Association) by accusing the organisation with propagating separatism and supporting the PKK, to be in the meeting and honoured her. This situation was understandable, because he needed to point out the "Kurdish question" in his Diyarbakir- speech and to the tongue twister slogan of official policy; "one country, one state and one nation".

The statements of T. Erdogan attracted all the attentions. Because the AKP (Justice and Development Party) government and T. Erdogan were considering the Kurdish question as "a fictitious question" and were saying "if you do not think of it then there will be no Kurdish question". This "change" happened in a few months has had to be explained.

The other question was the relations between the announced offensive concept and his meeting with the Turkish intellectuals who published a "peace communique" before his trip to Kurdistan's capital Diyarbakir, mentioning the "Kurdish question" and his acceptance of "some wrongdoings in the past". Did all these statements point at contradictions between the AKP government and the clique of generals?

Can it be a kind of onset for talks which will start with EU on 3 October?

Was it the USA's policy on the Middle East and the Kurdish question led them to make such a statement?

In the history of the Kurdish national liberation struggle, similar statements are made many times. During the Lausanne agreement in 1921, I. Inonu said "we are the representatives of the Turkish and Kurdish people". In 1993, T. Ozal said "we can even discuss on a federation with Kurds", while S. Demirel was saying "we recognize the Kurdish reality". And M. Yilmaz said "accession to the EU passes from Diyarbakir".

It is possible to find common sides in all of these statements: The statements never include the breaking and overcoming of the Turkish bourgeois state's annihilation and denial policy. As a result of the will and pressure of the Kurdish national movement, from time to time they include messages which create expectations and distractions. So, the Kurds are accepted as individuals but not as a nation. And all these statements remain only in words; they do not include initiatives and practices that would meet the Kurds' national and democratic demands.

The statement of the Prime Minister, T. Erdogan, was able to put PKK and some liberal circles into new expectations. PKK stressed that it deliberately welcomed the statement and founded it positive. But it also added that it expects practical steps. PKK stated that, as a step of goodwill, it converts from active defence to passive defence between the dates of 20 August and 20 September.

Ok, but which developments led T. Erdogan to make this statement?

In June 2004, PKK ended the one-sided ceasefire which it had continued for 5 years. It said that, during this period, the state has delayed the Kurdish national movement through its policy of "neither war nor peace", and therefore the state has to take steps in accordance with democratic demands. With their actions, PKK guerrillas caused losses for the Turkish army on unexpected levels. The provoked chauvinism and nationalism in Turkey led to be reach to dangerous dimensions together with lynch attempts. Strong signs of Turkish and Kurdish conflicts have appeared. This situation could have unstoppably speeded up the Kurdistan's split from Turkey.

Despite all impositions and tactical manoeuvres of the colonialist regime, the USA did not target the PKK's armed forces. The Kurds' process of "being a state" in Iraq went speedily further. The colonialist Turkish regime's "red lines" towards Iraqi Kurdistan became pink. The heads of Turkish soldiers were covered with sacks by USA soldiers. The Kurds in Iran and Syria upraised. In short, the political conditions, relations of power and dynamics of development in Turkey, Iraq and Middle East have led the fascist regime, at least the organisation of big capital TUSIAD and AKP to react in different directions and searches. The other important factor is that the AKP wants to regain the initiative that it has lost against the generals in governing the country.

Under these conditions 150 Turkish intellectuals have published a "peace communiquE9". In this communiquE9 they said "Our people should not die anymore, we must live in peace and have a just life. We want PKK to give an immediate and without preconditioned end to the armed actions. We demand the government (85) to introduce the necessary legal regulations." They even did not asked from fascist Turkish state, which restarted to show the examples of dirty and dark war through massacres and cruelty, to stop its offensive and operations. Some Kurdish intellectuals declared their support for the statement of the Turkish intellectuals by saying "we expect from government to stop immediately the military operations and to start the peace process in order to give an end to disputable atmosphere".

And the revolutionary and socialist intellectuals, who did not reconcile the statements with the attitude of a honourable intellectual attitude, in the same process, have published a communique "against militarism and chauvinism": They made a statement reconciling with their historical and political responsibilities by saying "The source of the violence is the state it self. Therefore, looking for a responsible for the violence in other address rather than the state will be incompatible both with intellectual's conscience and his/her scientific realistic identity (85) We are announcing that we will not let our people's horizon to be darkened and will not hesitate to serve responsibility which the life and society is expecting from an intellectual.

We call on the working class movement, all democratic mass organisations, labourers and all oppressed of the society to act as a united front and to struggle in common."

In the face of these developments, PKK wanted to announce in Brussels its decision for a month of ceasefire. The decision means converting from the position of active defence to passive defence for a month period. AKP government asked from Belgium government to arrest Kongra-Gel President, Z. Aydar -who was going to make a press conference against the statements of T. Erdogan- and to ban his press conference. Later the press conference is banned. In the same period, A. Ocalan's brother was not allowed to visit him in the prison for invented reasons. After the MGK (National Security Council) meeting on 23 August, the offence and prohibitions extended. New court cases demanding 10 years of imprisonment were opened against DEHAP leaders and they were banned from going oversees because of saying "Dear" Ocalan. A court case opened against the President of Diyarbakir Municipal, Osman Baydemir because of allocating a municipal-owned vehicle to transport death body of a guerrilla.

MLCP thinks that the T. Erdogan's statements cannot be considered separately from the annihilation and denial policy against the Kurdish nation. This statement is a part of the current wave of offence on the Kurdish people and the revolutionary movement; is the requirement of towing the Turkish intellectuals and liberal sectors of society.

The revolutionary popular solution is the solution of the Kurdish question. Political conjuncture we live in is offering important historical and political opportunities, possibilities and dynamics. MLCP repeats its call to increase the united struggle of the Turkish and Kurdish people on the colonialist regime's dirty and delaying tactics, and on the wave of chauvinist offence.

MLCP fights for the Turkish and Kurdish people's free, equal and voluntary federative unity. In order to realize this principal demand, it continues to organise independent actions with actual concrete demands such as a democratic and honoured peace, for the political representation of the Kurds and education in mother-tongue (in Kurdish), and points out the essentiality of waging a united struggle with national movement and other revolutionary and progressive forces.