Minority Phobia’ Haunts Turkey
Kurdistan Observer
Nov 8 2004
Any attempt to revise existing norms revives memories of the
non-ratified Sevres Treaty of 1920, forced through by the World War I
victors that would have divided Anatolia
FATMA DEMIRELLI – EMINE KART
Turkish Daily News / Nov 7, 2004
In 1923 the newly born Turkish Republic defined its minorities and
their rights in the historic Lausanne Treaty that was signed by
Western powers who failed to prevent the establishment of the
independent Turkish state. 81 years after Lausanne, the minority
issue is at the heart of a boiling debate and is under pressure from
outside and within.
The main outside player is the European Union, whose executive arm
the European Commission called on Turkey to expand its cultural
rights to Kurds without explicitly calling them a minority, and
complained that Alawis were not recognized as a Muslim minority.
That immediately sparked fury in Ankara, but complaints were
whispered and criticism was restrained and care was taken not to
spoil the positive atmosphere in the wake of the commission’s
historic recommendation.
At the heart of the unrest layed the fact that neither Alawis nor
Kurds were among the communities recognized as minorities under the
Lausanne Treaty, widely acclaimed as the basis of the independence
and unitary structure of the Turkish state. Thus, the commission’s
suggestions for rights for Kurds and Alawis were perceived as
potential threats to the unitary structure of the state.
The roots of sensitivities regarding minority issues are strongly
grounded in the experiences during the decline of the Ottoman Empire
and the birth of the Turkish Republic after World War I. During
Ottoman rule, Christian, Armenian and other religious communities
enjoyed autonomy in their religious activities and education.
But both the Turkish establishment and Turkish public share a
widespread belief that the Christian West then used the stick of
religion and nationalism in Eastern Europe to break up the Ottoman
Empire during the 19th and 20th centuries. Any attempt to revise
existing norms revives memories of the non-ratified Sevres Treaty of
1920, forced through by the World War I victors that would have
divided Anatolia with outright independence for the Armenians and
autonomy for the Kurds, leading to their independence.
The EU moved to calm the fears by saying the rights enjoyed by the
people were what mattered and not the “terminology,” and made it
clear Turkey would need to revise its thinking on the matter in the
light of changing international practices.
“It looks somehow not necessarily compatible with the existing
international instruments that the only minorities that Turkey
recognizes as minorities in Turkey should be non-Muslim religious
minorities and that any other minority would by definition not exist
in Turkey,” EU Commission’s representative in Ankara Ambassador
Hansjoerg Kretschmer told the Turkish Daily News in an interview.
That unrest in the state apparatus was initially kept low but Kurds,
and Alawis were quick to respond in a forceful way that rather
shocked the authors of the commission’s report and prompted
Kretschmer to admit, “I was somehow surprised by statements that are
made by representatives of Alawis and also of Kurds that they are not
a minority.”
Meaning entirely different things, representatives of both
communities agreed in rejecting the “minority” label designed for
them by the EU Commission. Alawis, citing their strong loyalty to the
secular republic and to its founder Kemal Ataturk, denounced the
“minority” description, something they felt was questioning their
firm loyalty to the state.
For Kurds, on the other hand, recognition as a minority fell short of
what they appeared to be wishing for, namely, acknowledgment of their
status as a “constituent element” of Turkey.
“We are not a minority,” Leyla Zana, a former deputy of the now
defunct People’s Democracy Party (DEHAP) told the European Parliament
in a speech upon receiving the prestigious Sakharov Prize. “Kurds are
a constituent element of the Turkish Republic,” she said.
Other Kurdish politicians emphasized that Kurds were too big a
community to be labelled as a minority, and their centuries-long
presence in Anatolia made it psychologically difficult for them to
accept minority status.
“We are talking about 20 million people who have been living in this
land for centuries. This huge number in itself and their presence for
centuries prevents them feeling like a minority group,” Hamit
Geylani, a lawyer for the pro-Kurdish Democratic People’s Party
(DEHAP), told the TDN.
“Calling for equal rights for all would not promote the
disintegration of the state; this fear is groundless. What leads to
clashes is the policy of denial,” he said.
“Provided that the state can satisfy its citizens, no one would like
to quit their own state and join another one, no matter how
geographically or ethnically close it would be. Switzerland is a very
good example,” said Serafettin Elci, former leader of the banned
Democratic Mass Party (DKP).
‘Sevres syndrome’
What marked a new stage in the debate over minorities was a report
drafted by a sub-committee of the Human Rights Advisory Board, a
government-sponsored body making recommendations to Prime Minister’s
Office.
With its sharp language criticizing the practice concerning cultural
rights, the report said the minority definition in Turkey was
restrictive, contradicting the modern-day trend that says nation
states are not to be asked if there are minorities living in their
territory and which accepts the presence of minorities in a state if
there are communities in that state who are “ethnically,
linguistically and religiously different” and feel this difference is
an inseparable part of their identity.
It said even the most innocent demands for a distinct identity have
been viewed with a “paranoid” suspicion that they are meant to divide
the country and promote terrorism, which the report described as the
“Sevres syndrome.”
The report’s blunt assessment created a storm even within the
78-member Human Rights Advisory Board, with some of its members
calling the report a “document of betrayal.” And it was that that
broke the silence of the state as well. President Ahmet Necdet Sezer,
in a message marking the anniversary of the foundation of the Turkish
Republic, warned the unitary structure of the state was an
untouchable issue and similar warnings from the influential military
followed.
“The Turkish Armed Forces [TSK] cannot accept any debate over the
unitary structure of the Turkish state, an untouchable provision of
the Constitution,” Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Ilker Basbug told a
press conference last week.
Unleashing criticism directed to the EU — held back for weeks —
Basbug also said the EU Commission’s report was not in compliance
with the Lausanne Treaty.
“It is clear that the EU’s approach goes beyond the framework drawn
up by the Lausanne Treaty,” Basbug said, complaining that some of the
rights suggested for those communities in the EU report went beyond
cultural rights and spilled over into the “political realm.”
The ongoing debate is yet to finish and the rights and wrongs are yet
to be set, but it has already exposed fears that have haunted Turkish
minds for decades, perhaps even centuries.
But for Geylani, who is banned from politics for five years as a
member of the now defunct People’s Democracy Party (HADEP), this is a
time to cherish. “The very fact that the issue is being debated 81
years after the establishment of the Turkish Republic is the most
positive thing about the whole debate,” he said.