Edmonton Journal (Alberta)
December 18, 2009 Friday
Final Edition

Turkish court ruling sets stage for more ethnic bloodshed

by Harry Sterling, Freelance

It’s said the Kurds’ only friends are the mountains.

Thanks to a decision by Turkey’s Constitutional Court some Kurds may,
in fact, end up in the mountains of northern Iraq, joining guerrilla
forces of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which have been engaged
in hostilities with the Turkish army since 1984.

The 11-member court unanimously agreed Dec. 11 that the Kurdishbased
Democratic Society Party (DTP) violated Articles 68 and 69 of the
country’s constitution and had become a " … focal point of
activities against the indivisible unity of the state, the country and
the nation."

The judges ruled that the Democratic Society Party be closed due to
its alleged links with the PKK and its top leaders be banned from
politics for five years, including some DTP members of parliament. One
of the key charges was the refusal of the DTP to label the PKK a
terrorist organization — a move which would have been political
suicide, given the widespread support for the PKK among many Kurds.

The leader of the DTP, Ahmet Turk, said the ban would not help efforts
to end the 25-year-long insurgency.

The ban comes at a time when Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan has been trying to persuade Turks to support initiatives to
reconcile the Turkish and Kurdish communities and to bring about an
end to the bloodshed which has killed more than 40,000 since the
mid-1980s.

Interestingly, Erdogan’s own ruling party, the Justice and Development
Party (AKP) narrowly missed being banned itself by the court because
of its alleged Islamic policies which violated the constitution.

Erdogan’s reforms include greater Kurdish language rights, including
access to television programming in Kurdish, the use of Kurdish during
political campaigns and reverting to Kurdish names for towns.

Many see Erdogan’s reforms as linked to Turkey’s application for
membership in the European Union, which has called on the Turkish
government to end restrictions on free speech and fundamental human
rights for all Turkish citizens.

However, the reforms are not solely about ending the marginalization
of the Kurdish population or ending the bloody conflict with the PKK,
led by the now jailed Abdullah Ocalan.

What the prime minister has set in motion are changes to the very
nature of Turkey and how Turkish society might function in the future.
Erdogan’s reforms would transform Turkey from a nation where every
person has been labelled a Turk regardless of their ethnic background
— Kurds represent 15 to 20 per cent of the population — to a state
where the glue holding the population together would be their mutual
citizenship in Turkey, not their "Turkishness."

While this concept of emphasizing citizenship over ethnic background
would not be unfamiliar to many Canadians, for ultra-nationalists in
Turkey it’s an intolerable concept threatening the very unity and
existence of the nation, not to mention their own entrenched power.

In fact, they have been in the forefront of those totally opposed to
any changes which would lessen "Turkishness". At present, insulting
"Turkishness" is subject to imprisonment under Turkish law.

Not surprisingly, the two main opposition parties in Turkey’s
parliament have denounced Erdogan’s current consultation process with
various groups in society concerning the reforms program.

Unfortunately for those who believe such reforms are necessary to
reconcile Kurds with the rest of the population, the banning of the
Democratic Society Party and its top leaders will only exacerbate the
situation. It will convince many Kurds their community is once again
being discriminated against as in the past. (Until recently,
mentioning the Kurdish population by name was a taboo subject; Kurds
were referred to as Mountain Turks, and even Kurdish traditional names
not allowed.)

Where all this may be heading remains unclear. It could work to the
advantage of hardliners in the PKK, some of whom are not interested in
their insurgency ending, particularly not if there’s no blanket
amnesty for all PKK fighters.

This setback in Erdogan’s reforms occurs at a time when Turkey’s
relations with other nations is also undergoing significant changes,
including relations with western nations and NATO allies.

Changes in Turkish foreign policies have caused considerable concern
in certain American circles. Some have concluded the Erdogan
government is even prepared to lessen ties with NATO allies and
refocus its attentions on countries in the region like Syria, Iran and
Sudan, which are viewed as anti-American.

Some say the new foreign policy is a deliberate attempt to manipulate
anti-western nationalism in Turkey in favour of the AKP’s supposed
Islamic objectives. Others maintain that the Erdogan government’s bias
in favour of Muslim countries has allowed it to downplay Turkey’s
traditional close relations with the U.S. and Europe. Positive views
of the U.S. and EU membership are now at all time lows. Even President
Barack Obama’s pro-Turkish statements have failed to improve Turkish
domestic views of the U.S.

Turkey’s relatively new foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, scoffs at
such concerns. He insists the AKP’s efforts to broaden relations with
neighbours and Muslim states are simply part of a new policy of
"Strategic Depth" and "zero problems with neighbours" policy.

(Paradoxically, Turkey’s traditionally close relations with
Turkish-speaking Azerbaijan have been adversely affected by Ankara’s
rapprochement with Armenia, the Azeris angered by Turkey possibly
opening its borders with Armenia before Armenia’s occupation of
Azerbaijan’s Nagorno-Karabakh region is resolved.)

The rationale for the new policy seems benign, based on the premise
Turkey sits among a number of "geocultural basins," such as the Middle
East and the Muslim world. In this view, Turkey can become a regional
power by establishing close relations with the so-called basins and
nearby neighbours, like Iran and Russia.

One casualty of this process could be Israel. Until recently, Turkey
and Israel had established close relations, including military
co-operation. However, following the Israeli attacks against Gaza,
Erdogan strongly condemned Tel Aviv’s actions, even storming out of a
meeting in Geneva with Israeli President Shimon Peres.

Ironically, while some once saw Turkey as a useful bridge between the
West and fractious Middle East countries, others may now wonder what
side of the bridge Turkey ultimately intends to be on.

Harry Sterling, a former diplomat, is an Ottawa-based commentator. He
served in Turkey.