PARANOIA OR REALITY: GENOCIDE
By Azad Aslan

Kurdish Globe
sp?id=4007D07D194DC5396C6DEC627B4B659B
May 22 2008
Iraq

A protester make a victory sign with his hand in front of a Kurdish
flag during a demonstration in Berlin January 26, 2008, against
cross-border operations in northern Iraq by Turkey. REUTERS

Professor Gregory Stanton, president of Genocide Watch, was in Erbil,
the capital of Kurdistan Region, and delivered a seminar on the issue
of genocide committed against the Kurds.

. His comments with regards to the Kurds in north Kurdistan (southeast
Turkey) is indeed very serious. He said: "I am afraid Turkey could
carry out genocide against Kurds since in the past Turkey committed
genocide against Armenians, yet they [Turks] deny that now. Still,
there is no punishment for them, and they also deny the existence of
Kurds in Turkey."

Coming from a distinguished scholar, this observation must be
taken very seriously and analyzed in a historical and political
context. There is real potential that Turkey may resort to genocide
against the Kurds. For some people, in this age of globalization
and interactive world-over communication, committing genocide
is unthinkable, particularly for a country such as Turkey that
is endeavoring to join the EU. Giving developments a closer look,
however, indicates a grim picture that such claim is not far-fetched.

Since its formation, the Turkish Republic has carried on a cultural
genocide against the Kurdish nation. The Kurdish language was banned
and those who spoke it were punished. The very national identity of
Kurds was classified as "mountain Turks." Kurdish names or titles of
geographical places of Kurdistan were renamed in Turkish. Millions
of Kurds in Turkey were denied education in their mother tongue. The
national identity of Kurds has not been recognized and is at most
classified in Turkish political discourse as a "sub-identity."

Despite such forceful assimilation, the Kurds proved to be resilient
and preserved their distinct cultural and national identity. Turkey,
on the other hand, has yet to make serious steps toward becoming a real
democratic country. Democratization of Turkey is undeniably problematic
and closely related to the Kurdish national question. The political
formation of the Turkish regime since 1923 has been anti-democratic and
totalitarian. At the root of this anti-democratic political formation
of the Turkish regime lies the construction of an artificial Turkish
nation upon the ruins of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious Ottoman
Empire.

The main objective of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) was to
secure the Ottoman state and make it 99% Muslim. The Turkish Republic,
which was established by Kemalists, themselves a continuation of CUP,
embarked upon a new Turkish state that was, as A. Roshwald argued,
"built on a legacy of genocide and ethnic cleansing and propagated
by a dictatorial regime with little patience for the niceties of
pluralistic policies." The main tenet of Kemalism was and still is
to make Turkey 99% Turk. This explains a grim reality that expecting
democratization of the Turkish political establishment, which grew
and evolved throughout the 20th century with a mentality of exclusive
Turkish identity, would be illusionary and misleading.

I am afraid Turkey could carry out genocide against Kurds since in
the past Turkey committed genocide against Armenians, yet they [Turks]
deny that now. Still, there is no punishment for them, and they also
deny the existence of Kurds in Turkey.

Despite EU pressures, Turkey still resists even granting the Kurds
minority status let alone recognizing Kurdish national identity. The
fact that the Kurds dispersed among four states in the Middle
East makes the Kurdish national question a regional and indeed an
international question. The relative freedom and political status of
the Kurds in south Kurdistan (Iraqi Kurdistan) and its international
recognition makes the Kurdish national question in Turkey even
more serious. The fact is that Turkey can no longer sustain its
current Kurdish policy with the existence of a legally established
Kurdistan Regional Government. Realizing that diminishing the KRG
is now an impossible task, Turkey must find a way to deal with its
own Kurds. Recognizing Kurdish national identity would shatter the
foundation of the Republic and its artificial construction of a Turkish
nation. In that sense, the Kurdish national question for Turkey is
not solely a democratic issue but a grave issue for its very existence.

The question here is whether Turkey would shift its cultural genocide
policy toward an ethnical one. This is surely not a hypothetical
but a very real question. CUP exploited World War I conditions to
eliminate the Armenians and they succeeded in that. Turkey, which is
built on the CUP legacy, may commit the same sin against the Kurds,
only within a regional context. In other words, Turkey may exploit
the chaotic political and military condition in case the Middle
East moves further into bloody conflict and regional war. The KRG’s
position with regards to Turkish policy against the Kurds would also
be detrimental in any potential Turkish move. The destiny of Iraqi
Kurdistan is closely interconnected with the Kurds in the north.

It is imperative for the Kurdish political actors throughout Kurdistan
not to take lightly Professor Stanton’s remarks. Indulging solely in
the belief that in this age of globalization democracy and human rights
would reign, the Kurds may blind themselves to the real politics of
the Middle East and face the same destiny as that of the Armenians
a century ago.