FOREWORD
How to deal with Turkey's Kurds is the subject of this important and provocative book.
The "Kurdish issue" is Turkey's most difficult and painful problem, one that presents a vast moral dilemma for the country. The issue, as the authors note, feeds Turkey's continuing inflation and is the major source of human rights violations and the biggest irritant in Turkey's relations with the European Union. Its most pronounced manifestation, the war in the southeast against Kurdish insurgents, has left more than twenty thousand dead and many hundreds of thousands displaced. Despite the massive Turkish military effort and some significant gains in coping with the Kurdistan Workers' party (PKK) insurgency, the fighting continues after thirteen years, although it has not reached the major cities of Turkey as many have long predicted.
The issue has been with Turkey almost since the beginning of the republic in 1923. Atatürk stamped out serious Kurdish rebellions in the 1920s and '30s. Modern Turkey has never accepted the notion of a Kurdish ethnic minority with minority rights. Turks have readily accepted Kurds as Turks but have difficulty letting Kurds be both Kurds and Turks. In the past twenty years the issue has been transformed by a variety of factors-demographic, economic, and geopolitical. Perhaps half of Turkey's six to twelve million Kurds(estimates vary widely) have moved out of the southeast and into the western cities of Turkey and have increasingly become integrated into the growing Turkish economy. Large numbers of Kurds have emigrated to Europe, where they finance Kurdish nationalist activity, including the PKK, and promote the Kurdish cause among Western European publics. The insurgency has outside support (Syria and Iran), outside financing, and a refuge inside the internationally policed no-fly zone in Iraq. Moreover, unlike earlier Kurdish insurrections, the war with the PKK gets public attention in the United States and Western Europe, not least because the Gulf War led to a major involvement of Turkey in the predominantly Kurdish areas of northern Iraq.
As the authors correctly point out, the Turkish state has treated the Kurdish issue as if it were identical to the PKK insurrection, as if the problem would be over once the PKK was eliminated. Until very recently, the United States has mostly agreed with this position, but the European states less so. The focus of the Turkish government, except for the spasmodic interest in the economic development of the southeast, has been to wipe out the PKK's military arm.
A month before his death in April 1993, I asked President Turgut Özal, a man of insight and great intellect, the question "What would you do?" Inherent in his answer was that economic growth would ultimately resolve the problem by ending the Kurds' status as a disadvantaged minority. But his explanation had a different thrust. He pointed out that half the people of the southeast had already left, primarily for economic reasons. Private investment would not go there; it is dangerous and costly, and there are far more productive and easier opportunities elsewhere in Turkey. The only answer, Özal believed, is to install incentives to get the remaining population of the southeast to move out. Özal was not just jesting, and he was not oblivious to the difficulties. Sizable emigration and the existence of a large urban Kurdish minority in a vast Turkish sea has already significantly complicated Kurdish perspectives. In any event, no Turkish government is likely to adopt Özal's approach publicly.
This book is the authors' answer to the "What would you do?" question. It is based on extensive study, many interviews with Kurds and Turks, and a long familiarity with Turkey. It is a policy book since the mass of information and analysis is directly geared to finding a better approach to the issue. Unfortunately, no good statistical basis exists for analyzing Kurdish matters, or for generalizing about the views of Turkey's far-flung Kurdish populations. The authors have had to make important judgments on some basic concerns. They call for a solution "within current borders" that inter alia (1) effectively establishes a legal Kurdish identity, (2) radically reduces and alters the current military approach in the southeast, (3) protects rather than harasses or bans Kurdish political parties, (4) allows Kurds education in their own language, and (5) decentralizes the administration of the state. They call for a dialogue, as inclusive as possible, with Kurds of differing political views and from various backgrounds. A basic requirement, in their view, is greater democracy and openness in Turkey, a prescription that in any case would serve Turkey's ultimate interests. Such a proposal as greater government decentralization is also important for Turkey regardless of its impact on the Kurdish issue. Many of these ideas have been voiced before, but until now they have not been put together in such a comprehensive way geared to policymakers and backed up by detailed analysis. I am not sure the authors' solutions will deal with the problem, but I frankly do not have a good prescription. Many Turks will declare them unnecessary and divisive. In the unlikely event that the Turkish government were to agree on the utility of the proposed measures, carrying them out is another question. There are strong and differing views on this issue among important groups in Turkey. But the authors have done a great deal; they cannot also be implementers.
This issue requires ventilation among and between Turks and Kurds alike. While public discussion of the Kurdish issue has significantly in-creased in Turkey in this decade, it is a subject that is handled very tenderly; options are rarely discussed. Turks do not like to be branded as unpatriotic, nor do they want to be threatened with a trial by the state prosecutor. Many Turks in fact still believe that the United States really is trying to split Turkey and carve out a Kurdish state. My numerous denials of such a plan when I was the American ambassador in Turkey were met with a certain skepticism; I felt at times that even raising the Kurdish issue made me suspect in some quarters.
The book's greatest contribution may be its impact in Turkey. It will certainly be widely read and get attention in the media. It will be noted and discussed, and this is of real, if intangible, value and very much what the authors hope to see.
Morton Abramowitz
Washington, D.C.
PREFACE
A few comments about the nature of this study-what it is and what it is not: First of all, this work represents a policy study. It is designed to examine the problems for Turkish policymakers and Turkish society, as well as for Turkey's friends and allies, stemming from the unrest among the Kurdish population in Turkey. We attempt to analyze the nature of the Kurdish problem in the setting of Turkish culture, politics, and society, and to offer some tentative approaches toward a solution. The report focuses much attention on the Kurds in Turkey but is not intended to be a study of Kurdish culture and society except as it relates to the policy problem.
Our first concern in preparing this study is for the future stability and well-being of Turkey as a key American ally, and for the Turkish government's ability to deal satisfactorily with the debilitating Kurdish problem. We are concerned for the preservation of the territorial integrity of Turkey; we strongly favor a solution that can be achieved within a unified Turkish state if this is at all possible-at a time when many countries of the world are beset by devastating ethnic rebellions and separatist tendencies. We are also concerned for the loss of life suffered by Kurds and Turks as a result of the conflict.
The study is not intended to be a report on human rights in Turkey. Others have done that work. Our study looks at the human rights problem only insofar as human rights must be increasingly observed by all states that wish to be successful members of the international community; failure to observe human rights also carries a political cost for Turkey in Europe and Washington. Also, we are interested in determining how the Turkish government can work to satisfy the special material and psychological needs of the Kurds to maintain a secure existence within Turkey. If their basic needs cannot be successfully met by state policies, the integrity of Turkey as a state will be at risk. Other countries face similar problems, and we hope that that eventuality can be avoided in Turkey.
We must state at the outset that our research leads us to believe that the Kurdish conflict is in essence an ethnic problem, and not one of simple terrorism or economics-although both terrorism and economic hardship are indeed part of the current crisis. The key policy questions we raise in this study are the following:
- What are the origins of the Kurdish conflict in Turkey?
- What is the current nature of the conflict involving Kurds within Turkey?
- What do the Kurds in Turkey want?
- What are the problems that Kurdish aspirations raise for the Turkish state?
- How can Kurdish needs in Turkey be met while preserving the integrity of Turkish territory?
Both authors have spent many years professionally studying Turkey from various points of view-political, cultural, linguistic, social, economic, and foreign policy-and have spent much time in Turkey. Our interviews with well over one hundred people over a five-year period tended to focus more upon those Kurds and Turks who are concerned with the Kurdish problem. One might argue that, statistically speaking, we should have spoken with many Kurds who are not interested in the problem-to the extent they exist. But the problem the Turkish state confronts stems specifically from those Kurds that are concerned about and perhaps even active regarding the Kurdish issue. So our study is naturally influenced by those Kurds and Turks who think about the problem-the active elites who make things happen.
But it is important to point out that this study is not quantitative in approach. We did not seek to poll as many individuals as possible to find their views, nor was our interview technique designed to fill out a specific questionnaire or opinion poll. We rather sought to gain an understanding of the viewpoints, attitudes, and psychology of various and diverse Kurdish interlocutors: businessmen, intellectuals, lawyers, journalists, members of parliament, politicians, human rights activists, conservatives and liberals, "nationalists" and "assimilated." After a period of intensive interviews and discussions, we began to find considerable similarities of response from quite diverse individuals on many of the key issues of greatest concern to us. Over the course of two years we traveled often to Turkey and Europe, continuing the interviews and updating our sources. These interviews and meetings represent the bulk of our fieldwork. Indeed, we feel that our impressions from our many interviews and discussions left little ambiguity on many of the key issues, such as questions of identity, grievances, and hopes and aspirations.
We talked with a broad variety of ethnic Turks: members of nearly every political party, lawyers, human rights activists, members of parliament, businessmen, journalists, government officials-including members of intelligence organizations-academics, liberals, and conservatives. We have studied the full spectrum of Turkish daily newspapers and journals to get a feel for the range of press attitudes, to the extent the Kurdish problem is discussed; the majority of our citations in this study are from Turkish sources and from Kurds and Turks inside Turkey. We purchased as many books on the Kurdish issue published in Turkey as we could find. We especially tried to read frequently those newspapers published by Kurds in Turkey and outside. While the pro-Kurdish press is of much interest on issues of attitudes and goals, most of our press citations are from the few serious mainstream Turkish dailies. We also interviewed a number of Kurds and Kurdish leaders in several European countries, and we talked with many Kurds from Iran and Iraq in several Western countries, including the United States. We met with Kurdistan Workers' Party (Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan, or PKK) representatives in Europe as well as anti-PKK leaders.
While this study focuses on Turkey, we have tried to keep a broad comparative perspective as relates to ethnic issues generically. We have examined other ethnic issues and conflicts-in particular the Israeli-Palestinian problem, with which we are quite familiar-to find parallels. The two cases are of course quite different in many respects: Unlike the Palestinians in Israel, Kurds and Turks have lived on a basis of full legal equality in Turkey for over seventy-five years (as long as Kurds suppressed their identity); Israel seized the West Bank by military force, whereas Kurdish regions had long been part of the Ottoman Empire; major cultural, linguistic, and religious differences exist between Palestinians and Israelis, far less so between Kurds and Turks in Turkey. At the same time there are useful parallels between the two situations, such as issues of refusal to recognize distinct national identities, problems of dealing with nationalist move-ments that also practice terror and guerrilla warfare, the experiences with rapprochement of the two peoples, evolution of guerrilla organizations and their use of terror, and so forth. It is important to recognize that Turkey is hardly unique or alone in suffering from modern crises of an ethnic nature, and the Turkish case is far from the worst in the region.
We are well aware that the study has shortcomings. The single greatest problem is the paucity of hard data. Few Western scholars have written about the Kurds of Turkey, in comparison with the number of studies on other cultures in the Middle East. There has been very little writing at all from Turkish and Kurdish scholars in Turkey, for the simple reason that such inquiry has generally been forbidden by the state and often punishable under charges of inciting separatism or terrorism. Kurds have traditionally been reluctant to discuss their concerns as Kurds; foreigners visiting the southeast in the years since the guerrilla warfare and state of emergency have been under close scrutiny, so that private meetings with Kurds in the region are yet more difficult.
If this were a purely academic study, we would simply have had to conclude that we could not "prove" some of our key hypotheses in any way that would "convince" skeptics; indeed what constitutes "proof" is what academic debate is all about anyway. Because the most pertinent questions for policymakers are probably the most difficult to answer-that is why they are posed-we have felt compelled to answer those questions as we initially listed them. They require careful response, even if they cannot be answered definitively. We have tried in much of this work to indicate the difficulties in providing firm responses, and to give the basis of our reasoning when we feel the evidence is less than fully convincing. There perhaps is no data or evidence that would ever prove sufficient to convince those whose beliefs are already firm on this topic. We can only rest on our best judgments, based on the broad variety of information we acquired and on some considerable experience with the daunting problems of political forecasting.
Above all, we hope that this work will serve to encourage greater debate within Turkey itself, so that the Kurdish issue can be seriously treated by the many Turks and Kurds who have thought carefully about the problem, even if they have not always been able to publicize their views. If the Turkish government would permit it, Turkish and Kurdish scholars in Turkey could very quickly amass a body of data far superior to anything we present here, and debate it thoroughly in the press and academia. If this study can spark that kind of further research, marked by greater precision and increased information and understanding, then it will have been worthwhile.
We cannot presume to come in and tell either the Turkish government or the Kurds what their problem is and what to do about it. The Turkish government will move in the time and manner of its own choosing. On the other hand, this kind of effort must begin somewhere, and our chief concern is that at present there seems to be a political stalemate of long standing in the country. Indeed, this study was undertaken precisely because there are so few things written on this policy question that can help concerned Turks, Kurds, or Americans. For the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, the Kurdish case in Turkey has been one of the most important examples of ethnic violence today in a state that matters a great deal to the United States.
We have refrained from citing by name the individuals in Turkey whom we interviewed; we promised in all cases that no one would be identified, in order to overcome concerns and induce greater openness and frankness. We owe a great deal to the many individuals who spent so much time talking with us, often at great length or on several occasions, to give us deeper insight into their concerns and the nature of the problem. We would also like to take this occasion to especially thank Jane Holl at the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict for having made this study possible. We thank RAND for having made its own financial contribution to the study. We also owe a debt of gratitude to Morton Abramowitz, George Harris, Heath Lowry, Serif Mardin, Stanley Roth, Eric Rouleau, and Shibley Telhami for encouraging us and reviewing and providing useful critiques of the manuscript before it was published. In addition we would like to thank Melissa Fuller, who helped us with a valuable literature review of relevant scholarly thinking on the problem of ethnic identity, separatism, and alternative forms of solution, and members of the staff of the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, especially Bob Lande, for their patience in arranging valuable critiques of the manuscript and in helping prepare the book for publication.
Introduction
Why Turkey Matters
Why Should an Examination of the Turkish case be of interest to a broader audience concerned with conflict prevention? There are, after all, a multiplicity of countries in the world with internal frictions also meriting attention. Turkey is of particular interest because it presents a fascinating range of issues that have considerable generic applicability to conflict situations in the rest of the world.
Turkey's key internal conflict centers on the role of its large Kurdish minority-ethnically and linguistically distinct-in a state that constitutionally consists only of "citizens of Turkey"-Turks-with no ethnic distinctions drawn. Bearers of a long tradition and culture of their own for perhaps two millennia, the Kurds today are rapidly reformulating their own ethnic identity as a community and seeking its expression in legal terms in the cultural and political realm of Turkish life. In generic terms then, the Kurdish problem represents the striving of an ethnic minority to achieve legal recognition as such, and to establish legal rights deriving therefrom. Since most states in the world are multiethnic in reality, even if they are not always recognized as such, and in them minority ethnic rights are often denied, the Turkish situation is broadly representative of what most countries in the world already face, or will be facing.
The question raises difficult problems of multiculturalism-again common to much of the world. Is it desirable to seek broad "assimilation" of minorities when most members of that minority group perhaps prefer to…
Henri J. Barkey,
Graham E. Fuller
Turkey's Kurdish question
Rowman & Littlefield
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Henri J. Barkey,
Graham E. Fuller
Carnegie Commission on preventing deadly conflict
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Lanham - Boulder - New York - Oxford
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Published in the United States of America
by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
4720 Boston Way, Lanham, Maryland 20706
12 Hid's Copse Road
Cumnor Hill, Oxford OX2 9JJ, England
Copyright © 1998 by Carnegie Corporation of New York
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Barkey, Henri J.
Turkey's Kurdish question / Henri J. Barkey and Graham E. Fuller.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 0-8476-8552-7 (cloth).—ISBN 0-8476-8553-5 (pbk.)
1. Kurds—Turkey. 2. Turkey—Ethnic relations. 3. Turkey—
Politics and government-1980– 4. Kurds—Turkey—Ethnic identity.
I. Fuller, Graham H. II. Title.
DR435.K87B37 1998
956.1'00491597—dc21
97-30696
CIP
ISBN 0-8476-8552-7 (cloth : alk. paper)
ISBN 0-8476-8553-5 (pbk. : alk. paper)
Printed in the United States of America
∞ TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of
American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for
Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
About the
Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict Series
Carnegie Corporation of New York established the Carnegie Commission on Pre-venting Deadly Conflict in May 1994 to address the threats to world peace of intergroup violence and to advance new ideas for the prevention and resolution of deadly conflict. The commission is examining the principal causes of deadly ethnic, nationalist, and religious conflicts within and between states and the circumstances that foster or deter their outbreak. Taking a long-term, worldwide view of violent conflicts that are likely to emerge, it seeks to determine the functional requirements of an effective system for preventing mass violence and to identify the ways in which such a system could be implemented. The commission is also looking at the strengths and weaknesses of various international entities in conflict prevention and considering ways in which international organizations might contribute toward developing an effective international system of nonviolent problem solving. The series grew out of the research that the commission has sponsored to answer the three fundamental questions that have guided its work: What are the problems posed by deadly conflict and why is outside help often necessary to deal with these problems? What approaches, tasks, and strategies appear most promising for pre-venting deadly conflict? What are the responsibilities and capacities of states, inter-national organizations, and private and nongovernmental organizations for undertaking preventive action?
The books are published as a service to scholars, students, practitioners, and the interested public. While they have undergone peer review and have been approved for publication, the views that they express are those of the author or authors, and commission publication does not imply that those views are shared by the commission as a whole or by individual commissioners.
Published in the series:
Bridging the Gap: A Future Security Architecture for the Middle East, by Shai Feldman and Abdullah Toukan
The Price of Peace: Incentives and International Conflict Prevention, edited by David Cortright
Sustainable Peace: The Role of the UN and Regional Organizations in Preventing Conflict, by Connie Peck
Turkey's Kurdish Question, by Henri J. Barkey and Graham E. Fuller
Forthcoming:
The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation, by Scott Appleby
Opportunities Missed, Opportunities Seized: Preventive Diplomacy in the Post-Cold War World, edited by Bruce Jentleson
The Costs of Conflict: Prevention and Care in the Global Arena, edited by Michael E. Brown and Richard N. Rosecrance
Reports available from the commission:
David Hamburg, Preventing Contemporary Intergroup Violence, founding essay of the commission, April 1994.
David Hamburg, Education for Conflict Resolution, April 1995.
Comprehensive Disclosure of Fissionable Materials: A Suggested Initiative, June 1995.
Larry Diamond, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives, December 1995.
Andrew J. Goodpaster, When Diplomacy Is Not Enough: Managing Multinational Military Interventions, July 1996.
Jane E. Holl, Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict: Second Progress Report, July 1996.
John Stremlau, Sharpening International Sanctions: Toward a Stronger Role for the United Nations, November 1996.
Alexander L. George and Jane E. Holl, The Warning-Response Problem and Missed Opportunities in Preventive Diplomacy, May 1997.
John Stremlau with Helen Zille, A House No Longer Divided: Progress and Prospects for Democratic Peace in South Africa, July 1997.
Nik Gowing, Media Coverage: Help or Hindrance in Conflict Prevention, September 1997.
Cyrus R. Vance and David A. Hamburg, Pathfinders for Peace: A Report to the UN Secretary-General on the Role of Special Representatives and Personal Envoys, September 1997.
Preventing Deadly Conflict: Executive Summary of the Final Report, December 1997.
Gail W. Lapidus with Svetlana Tsalik, eds., Preventing Deadly Conflict: Strategies and
Institutions, Proceedings of a Conference in Moscow, Russia, February 1998.
Scott Feil, Preventing Genocide: How the Early Use of Force Might Have Succeeded in
Rwanda, March 1998.
Douglas Lute, Improving National Capacity To Respond to Complex Emergencies: The
U.S. Experience, March 1998.
Tom Gjelten, Professionalism in War Reporting: A Correspondent's View, March 1998.
To order Power Sharing and International Mediation in Ethnic Conflicts by Timothy
Sisk, copublished by the commission and the United States Institute of Peace,
please contact USIP Press, P.O. Box 605, Herndon, VA 22070, USA; phone:
(800) 868-8064 or (703) 661-1590.
Full text or summaries of these reports are available on the commission's web site: http://www.ccpdc.org
To order a report or to be added to the commission's mailing list, contact:
Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict
1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 715
Washington, DC 20036-2103
Phone: (202) 332-7900 Fax: (202) 332-1919
