Seaview
07-23-2008, 01:21 PM
How the Kurdish question needs to be resolved has been discussed for many years. In addition to the fact that no agreement has emerged on the definition of this problem, no reconciliation has been reached, either.
In Turkey, a substantial segment still wants the continuation of the current policies of denial, repression and assimilation. Those who see the Kurdish problem as a "separatist" terrorism issue alone are reluctant to rely on an approach based on military measures only. Any demands in regards to Kurdish identity are labeled as separatism. The paranoia that even the smallest democratic progress will be followed by other demands and that the individual cultural rights will transform into group rights, a federation and ultimately an independent Kurdish state makes these circles lose sleep over this. Fear is constantly generated by those who favor the status quo and are alienated from the people, the culture and the history of the Middle East as well as the media which supports them.
It is possible to categorize the views of those intellectuals, parties and organizations who support the resolution of the Kurdish issue but hold different ideologies and worldviews on the resolution of the problem as follows:
These categories are:
* Kurdish nationalists (Those who promote the idea of an independent Kurdish state)
* Supporters of an ethnic federation
* Those who promote the project of coexistence
Kurdish nationalists
Kurdish nationalism emerged in the early 20th century. The idea of a nation state arrived as an ideology of the bourgeoisie after the French Revolution and influenced some Kurdish intellectuals.
Nationalist thoughts non-Muslim peoples of the Ottoman state -- Serbs, Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians and Armenians -- had embraced also impressed the Muslim groups as well. Following the Albanians and the Arabs, some Kurdish intellectuals joined this movement.
The above-mentioned peoples other than the Kurds revolted against the Ottoman state and gained independence, whereas only the Armenian uprising failed. A political uprising contrary to the interests of the Armenian people who suffered a lot resulted in a disaster. As opposed to the Muslim Albanians and Arabs, the Kurds did not part ways with the Ottoman state. The Kurds dealt with the pains and turmoil of World War I together with the Turks. The Kurdish people and leaders viewed their fates connected to the fates of the Turks because of the idea of Islamic brotherhood and unity. Currently, with the exception of a small number of intellectuals, the vast majority of Kurds in Turkey promote coexistence in a just and democratic republic instead of founding an independent Kurdish state.
There are two reasons why a Kurdish state was not created in the Middle East in the 20th century:
1- The Western imperialists did not see an independent Kurdish state as compatible with their interests. There are several reasons for this.
2- The Kurds did not want to part ways with the Turks, with whom they have lived together for centuries.
The vast majority of Kurds still object to the idea of a nation-state and a separate Kurdish state from Turkey. These objections may be divided into two parts:
1- The idea of a nation-state and the nation-state model was fashionable in the 19th century. The nation-state became outdated in the 21st century. A wave of globalization has swept through the world. Information and culture recognize no boundaries, and the movement of goods cannot be prevented. All values generated in the fields of sports, fashion, cinema and music are disseminated instantly; likewise, information and technology transcend boundaries. A commodity produced in China is marketed in another part of the world in a few days. The Internet has almost become the common memory of all of humanity. Marriages between people of different religions, languages and ethnicities are on the rise; local languages are disappearing and being replaced by English, which is increasingly becoming the official language of the world. In such a world, national boundaries become insignificant in economic and cultural terms; the bourgeoisie, which promoted nationalism and national boundaries in the 19th and 20th centuries for the sake of its interests, now seeks to lift the boundaries, considering that they are contrary to its interests.
Instead of nation-states, regional unions and political and economic organizations like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the European Union gain importance. In the current form of the world, it is commonly held that a delayed Kurdish nationalism would bring harm to Kurds rather than benefits. The Kurds desire to remain within a political organization consistent with the new global tendencies rather than trying a non-functional and outdated model.
2. The nation-state model does not fit the Middle East. The nation-state brought irresolution rather than solution to Middle Eastern communities because of the following reasons:
a. The Middle East does not have a social structure similar to that of Europe; the two have undergone different historical processes. The Middle East did not experience historical turning points that made Europe the current Europe, including the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and democratic revolutions. There have been no bourgeoisie and labor classes in the Middle East in the Western sense. The feudality of Europe and feudality of the Middle East do not overlap. To this end, the lord of Europe is not equal to the ağa of the Middle East; likewise, the church and priest of Christianity are not the proper matches of mosque and imam of the Islamic world.
b. Ethnic, religious and sectarian differences are not separated via visible lines in the Middle East; instead, they are intertwined. Kurd-Turk-Arab, Muslim-Christian, Sunni-Shiite mostly live in the same city, in the same neighborhood. Likewise, the Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, Assyrians, Armenians and Greeks have lived together in this land. The social structure has been based on conciliation and coexistence rather than conflict and separation. This is the case in ancient Islamic cities like İstanbul, Cairo, Baghdad and Damascus.
c. These ethnic, religious and sectarian differences have existed under the rule of big states instead of small ones that clashed with each other. From this perspective, the history of the Middle East is the history of empires. The Roman, Medes, Persian, Byzantine, Umayyad, Abbasid, Seljuk and Ottoman eras may be cited as examples of this. During some periods of interruptions and disorder, small states emerged; but this did not last long and a big political organization established its rule. The period following the Mongolian invasion is an example of this.
d. The dominant factor in the Middle East is religion and sect rather than ethnicity. This is the case in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. The Kirkuk Turkmen and the Shiite Kurds in Iraq act together with the Arab Shiites.
e. Marriages take place between those who share the same religion and sect without considering the lingual and racial difference. Integration between families is almost intact. It is estimated that the number of marriages between Turks and Kurds is over 1 million in Turkey alone.
f. There have been almost no ethnic wars between communities in the Middle East. The most important wars in the history were fought between Turks. These are the wars fought between Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror and the Akkoyunlu ruler Uzun Hasan, Yıldırım Bayezit and Uzbek Timurlane, Sultan Selim I and Safavid Shah Ismail. All these rulers were Turks. In addition, with the exception of Shah Ismail, all others were Sunni as well. The reason of the wars was the pursuit of power and influence.
g. The idea of nationalism is relatively new to the Middle East. First, military states were founded to create a nation through the efforts of the state. Ağaoğlu Ahmet, Ziya Gökalp and Moiz Kohen in Turkey and Michel Aflaq and Jamal Abdel Nasser in the Arab world served as the leading names in support of this ideology. Kurdish nationalism is a delayed nationalism. Arab nationalism is still behind religion and sect. It is not possible to talk about national awareness and unity in the modern sense.
http://pukmedia.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5450&Itemid=1
In Turkey, a substantial segment still wants the continuation of the current policies of denial, repression and assimilation. Those who see the Kurdish problem as a "separatist" terrorism issue alone are reluctant to rely on an approach based on military measures only. Any demands in regards to Kurdish identity are labeled as separatism. The paranoia that even the smallest democratic progress will be followed by other demands and that the individual cultural rights will transform into group rights, a federation and ultimately an independent Kurdish state makes these circles lose sleep over this. Fear is constantly generated by those who favor the status quo and are alienated from the people, the culture and the history of the Middle East as well as the media which supports them.
It is possible to categorize the views of those intellectuals, parties and organizations who support the resolution of the Kurdish issue but hold different ideologies and worldviews on the resolution of the problem as follows:
These categories are:
* Kurdish nationalists (Those who promote the idea of an independent Kurdish state)
* Supporters of an ethnic federation
* Those who promote the project of coexistence
Kurdish nationalists
Kurdish nationalism emerged in the early 20th century. The idea of a nation state arrived as an ideology of the bourgeoisie after the French Revolution and influenced some Kurdish intellectuals.
Nationalist thoughts non-Muslim peoples of the Ottoman state -- Serbs, Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians and Armenians -- had embraced also impressed the Muslim groups as well. Following the Albanians and the Arabs, some Kurdish intellectuals joined this movement.
The above-mentioned peoples other than the Kurds revolted against the Ottoman state and gained independence, whereas only the Armenian uprising failed. A political uprising contrary to the interests of the Armenian people who suffered a lot resulted in a disaster. As opposed to the Muslim Albanians and Arabs, the Kurds did not part ways with the Ottoman state. The Kurds dealt with the pains and turmoil of World War I together with the Turks. The Kurdish people and leaders viewed their fates connected to the fates of the Turks because of the idea of Islamic brotherhood and unity. Currently, with the exception of a small number of intellectuals, the vast majority of Kurds in Turkey promote coexistence in a just and democratic republic instead of founding an independent Kurdish state.
There are two reasons why a Kurdish state was not created in the Middle East in the 20th century:
1- The Western imperialists did not see an independent Kurdish state as compatible with their interests. There are several reasons for this.
2- The Kurds did not want to part ways with the Turks, with whom they have lived together for centuries.
The vast majority of Kurds still object to the idea of a nation-state and a separate Kurdish state from Turkey. These objections may be divided into two parts:
1- The idea of a nation-state and the nation-state model was fashionable in the 19th century. The nation-state became outdated in the 21st century. A wave of globalization has swept through the world. Information and culture recognize no boundaries, and the movement of goods cannot be prevented. All values generated in the fields of sports, fashion, cinema and music are disseminated instantly; likewise, information and technology transcend boundaries. A commodity produced in China is marketed in another part of the world in a few days. The Internet has almost become the common memory of all of humanity. Marriages between people of different religions, languages and ethnicities are on the rise; local languages are disappearing and being replaced by English, which is increasingly becoming the official language of the world. In such a world, national boundaries become insignificant in economic and cultural terms; the bourgeoisie, which promoted nationalism and national boundaries in the 19th and 20th centuries for the sake of its interests, now seeks to lift the boundaries, considering that they are contrary to its interests.
Instead of nation-states, regional unions and political and economic organizations like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the European Union gain importance. In the current form of the world, it is commonly held that a delayed Kurdish nationalism would bring harm to Kurds rather than benefits. The Kurds desire to remain within a political organization consistent with the new global tendencies rather than trying a non-functional and outdated model.
2. The nation-state model does not fit the Middle East. The nation-state brought irresolution rather than solution to Middle Eastern communities because of the following reasons:
a. The Middle East does not have a social structure similar to that of Europe; the two have undergone different historical processes. The Middle East did not experience historical turning points that made Europe the current Europe, including the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution and democratic revolutions. There have been no bourgeoisie and labor classes in the Middle East in the Western sense. The feudality of Europe and feudality of the Middle East do not overlap. To this end, the lord of Europe is not equal to the ağa of the Middle East; likewise, the church and priest of Christianity are not the proper matches of mosque and imam of the Islamic world.
b. Ethnic, religious and sectarian differences are not separated via visible lines in the Middle East; instead, they are intertwined. Kurd-Turk-Arab, Muslim-Christian, Sunni-Shiite mostly live in the same city, in the same neighborhood. Likewise, the Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, Assyrians, Armenians and Greeks have lived together in this land. The social structure has been based on conciliation and coexistence rather than conflict and separation. This is the case in ancient Islamic cities like İstanbul, Cairo, Baghdad and Damascus.
c. These ethnic, religious and sectarian differences have existed under the rule of big states instead of small ones that clashed with each other. From this perspective, the history of the Middle East is the history of empires. The Roman, Medes, Persian, Byzantine, Umayyad, Abbasid, Seljuk and Ottoman eras may be cited as examples of this. During some periods of interruptions and disorder, small states emerged; but this did not last long and a big political organization established its rule. The period following the Mongolian invasion is an example of this.
d. The dominant factor in the Middle East is religion and sect rather than ethnicity. This is the case in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. The Kirkuk Turkmen and the Shiite Kurds in Iraq act together with the Arab Shiites.
e. Marriages take place between those who share the same religion and sect without considering the lingual and racial difference. Integration between families is almost intact. It is estimated that the number of marriages between Turks and Kurds is over 1 million in Turkey alone.
f. There have been almost no ethnic wars between communities in the Middle East. The most important wars in the history were fought between Turks. These are the wars fought between Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror and the Akkoyunlu ruler Uzun Hasan, Yıldırım Bayezit and Uzbek Timurlane, Sultan Selim I and Safavid Shah Ismail. All these rulers were Turks. In addition, with the exception of Shah Ismail, all others were Sunni as well. The reason of the wars was the pursuit of power and influence.
g. The idea of nationalism is relatively new to the Middle East. First, military states were founded to create a nation through the efforts of the state. Ağaoğlu Ahmet, Ziya Gökalp and Moiz Kohen in Turkey and Michel Aflaq and Jamal Abdel Nasser in the Arab world served as the leading names in support of this ideology. Kurdish nationalism is a delayed nationalism. Arab nationalism is still behind religion and sect. It is not possible to talk about national awareness and unity in the modern sense.
http://pukmedia.com/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5450&Itemid=1