Kurdish Globe
Feb 13 2010

U.S. should back a new Constitution, not the military, in Turkey

By Azad Aslan
Globe Editorial

Last week, two high-profile visits to Turkey by U.S. officials to
discuss a number of issues with Turkish authorities, including the PKK
(Kurdistan Workers Party) issue, may indicate a new turn with regard
to the Kurdish national question in Turkey.

The AKP-led Turkish government’s highly debated, so-called Democratic
Opening, which dealt with Turkey’s long-standing question of the
Kurdish issue, was derailed mainly thanks to the fierce opposition
from the two main parties in the Turkish National Assembly, the CHP
(Republican People’s Party) and the MHP (National People Party). The
Democratic Opening also received a huge blow when the country’s
constitutional court decided to close the only pro-Kurdish party, the
DTP (Democratic Society Party), while at the same time the PKK
attacked and killed several Turkish soldiers in Turkey.

Initially the opening provided some hope for the century-long Kurdish
question for a democratic solution, and the Kurdistan Regional
Government officials in Iraqi Kurdistan expressed their optimism and
support for the initiative of the Turkish government. Following the
Turkish government’s initiative, there was a lively academic and
public discussion centered on the Kurdish issue and the possibility of
its resolution. However, this short-lived optimism turned into
pessimism when the abovementioned developments followed the opening.
Despite all these negative occurrences, Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan insisted that the Democratic Opening continue. This,
however, seems very unlikely, and requires profound fundamental
structural reforms within the Turkish establishment that are necessary
not only for the solution of Kurdish national question, but also other
deep-seated questions ranging from the Armenian genocide to
headscarves and the role of the military in political life of Turkey.

Since the establishment of the Turkish Republic, one of the main
characters of Turkish politics can be categorized as a military
tutelage whereas the main founder of the republic, the military under
the banner of Kemalism, determines the social, political, and economic
life of the country. Despite Turkey’s transformation from single-party
rule to a multi-party system in the second half of the 20th century,
the governments have had limited roles and space in the political
administration. The framework determined by the Kemalist military
ideology symbolized by secularism and inclusive nationalism. At
certain junctions where the civil polity tried to break the chain of
this framework, the military inserted its rule through military coup
d’états. The last military coup happened on September 12, 1980, and
the new Turkish Constitution was prepared and endorsed under this
military regime. The main problems of Turkey finding difficulty
dealing with fundamental problems are related to this militarist
Constitution and judicial system.

This explains the fact that any government in Turkey, if it is serious
in dealing with and bringing solutions to the grave questions, must
rewrite a democratic and civil Constitution and reform the judicial
system. As long as the current Turkish Constitution prevails, any
initiative toward a democratic and peaceful solution of Turkey is
bound to fail.

That is not to say that a new democratic constitution will be able to
resolve the most intricate question of Turkey–that is, the Kurdish
national question–but it will provide a better and peaceful road
toward the solution. The Kurdish question primarily is a national
question, a question of territory and property right to control
resources on territory in parallel with self-administration. In short,
it is a question of building a state and self-determination. To expect
a democratic constitution to grant such rights to the Kurds in Turkey
would be over-optimistic and far from reality. This, however, should
not discourage the Kurdish political actors from pushing to support
any initiative toward writing a new constitution providing basic
cultural rights to the Kurds. The Kurdish political actors in Turkey
should follow a delicate policy while on the one hand assisting any
Turkish government that attempts to reform the political system of
Turkey on the Kurdish question, and on the other hand they should not
lose perspective of the real character of the Kurdish question. This
means the Kurdish actors should be both assistive and critical of the
government on its initiative toward the Kurdish issue.

The fact is, the Kurdish question is not entirely an internal affair
of Turkey but has an international character; the actors involved in
this question are from diverse political power circles within the
Turkish establishment, Kurdish political groups, the KRG, and
international power centers–mainly the U.S. and EU. Each of these
actors one way or other influence and affect the question and its
possible solutions on its own merits. Because of this character, it is
not entirely on the Kurdish actors to determine the possible roads
toward the solution. The other actors, particularly the international
ones, should play a positive and contributory role.

The U.S. is explicitly involved in this question and cooperates with
Turkey on this issue. For so long, the U.S. pursued the Kurdish
question as a terror issue and provided military assistance to Turkey
to combat PKK guerrilla warfare. However, it seems that the U.S. only
recently began to see that the question cannot be dealt with purely
through a military effort, but other measures must be taken into
consideration. This perception has not gone far in terms of
implications, but remains solely in verbal well-wishes. The U.S.
military support for Turkey, however, continues. This cooperation
intensified in 2007, when Washington decided to provide significant
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance capacities, and other
equipment to Ankara to back up its efforts to eliminate the PKK.

In the last two official U.S. visits by U.S. Defense Minister Robert
Gates and Gen. Ray Odierno to Ankara, they offered Turkey more help
with equipment and intelligence to combat the PKK both in Turkey and
in their base in Kurdistan Region of Iraq. "I offered during my visit
here to see if there are more capabilities that we can share with
Turkey in terms of taking on this threat," Gates stated. He further
stated that Gen. Odierno, the top U.S. officer in Iraq, discussed an
"action plan" on possible further assistance with Turkish officials
when he visited Ankara earlier this week.

The U.S. must understand that whatever military cooperation it can
make with Turkey, it is not possible to deal with or get rid of the
Kurdish question. Instead of encouraging the Turkish military to
perceive the question entirely from a security threat and terror
perspective, the U.S. must encourage civil and democratic institutions
in Turkey to push it toward a better functioning democracy where all
the problems of Turkey can be dealt with.

Neither the Turkish state nor the U.S. has any right to ask the KRG to
take a part in this issue from a purely military solution. Kurdistan
President Massoud Barzani was absolutely right when he explained
during his interview with the Brookings Institute in the U.S. that he
will not take part if Turkey deals with the issue from a military
angle. He underlined that the issue can be resolved through dialogue
and democratic initiative. He expressed the KRG’s good intention to
support the Turkish government in its effort in the Democratic
Opening. This clear perspective put forward by the Kurdistan President
should be taken seriously by Turkey and the U.S., and this should be
the blueprint of KRG policy to deal with the PKK and Kurdish questions
in Turkey.

e.jsp?id=3A95533671788440D43CF1C899956835