The EU, Turkey and the Kurdish Question
Speech given by Alex Fitch at a meeting in the Scottish Parliament, 13 March 2008

For all the lack of protest it caused you could be forgiven for missing the Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq, the area also sometimes known as the Kurdish autonomous region. The attack was not missed by Kurds living in Britain who demonstrated in their thousands to try to highlight the issues which lie behind Turkey's most recent military action. The Kurdish question is not, and has not been, confined to geographical Kurdistan. It is an unresolved international issue. It is an issue that affects Scotland, that affects London, Washington and Ankara. However, it is the Kurds themselves who are most directly affected as others try to dictate how and where they may and may not live. To understand why Kurds have come to live in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, England, throughout Europe and indeed the world it is necessary to understand some history. To understand how Kurds have become marginalised and criminalised it is necessary to look at some politics. To understand why there has been a virtual silence about the Turkish invasion of Northern Iraq and Kurdish efforts at bringing about a peaceful solution to a decades of conflict we need to look at some Realpolitik. I will attempt to cover these issues briefly in the following.

With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the occupation of large tracts of former Ottoman territory by Western forces there was a fleeting moment in which an independent Kurdish state looked like a possibility. Indeed the Treaty of Serves, in the end unimplemented, provided for such. However, the rise of Mustafa Kemal's Turkish Nationalist forces changed the political situation. The Lausanne Treaty of 1923 dashed Kurdish hopes and partitioned Kurdistan condemning Kurds to decades more denial and oppression. Still, no decade passed by without Kurds struggling against the injustice they suffered at Lausanne. Similarly, despite the attempts by the various regimes under which Kurds were now forced to live their identity, language and culture survived. Survival has been at a great cost. Thousands have died, while many more have been subjected to torture, lost families, homes, land and forced to flee their country as refugees. Kurds started to arrive in Britain as refugees in siginficant numbers in the 1980's primarily escaping Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the psudo-civillian military regime in Turkey.

The people of Scotland, Wales and Ireland, free to explore their own histories and perhaps familiar with the plight of their own families during the centuries of ethnic cleansing and expulsion directed from London, probably understand better the injustice that creates refugees than the bureaucrats who today formulate policies directed at controlling asylum or which is presented to us as essential in the meaninglessly termed "War on Terrorism".

Until Saddam Hussein's transmogrification Kurds were an effectively ignored people. They could be discriminated against within the borders of the countries in which they lived and even killed as long as killings didn't become too much of an embarrassment (as Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Kurds in Halabja in 1988 risked becoming). When Kurds in Iraq became a useful ally against Saddam Hussain the international community created a problem from which it has failed to extricate itself. That is how to answer persistent and awkward questions about what made the killing and persecution of Iraqi Kurds by Saddam's regime different to the Turkish states killing of Kurds in Turkey. The answer is of course Realpolitik which does not allow itself to become bogged down by sentimentalism or idealistic proclamations about how humans should live in an ideal world. So we are now left with a rather bizarre situation in which Kurds in Iraq enjoy regional autonomy, operate their own militia and are free to speak their language and observe their traditional culture. On top of this their political leadership is a key part of todays Iraqi Government. Compare this to the situation in Turkey where if Kurds are officially identified as such it usually means something very unpleasant is about to happen to them. In Turkey Kurds have no autonomy, are not free to observe cultural or linguistic preferences (despite supposed reforms), are not welcome in national government and are most certainly not allowed to operate their own autonomous militias.

The motivation for internationally proscribing the PKK and Congra Gel has nothing to do with preventing violence or criminality and everything to do with trying to avoid an inevitable confronting of awkward truths. To imagine that it is possible to ban the PKK or Congra Gel is as ludicrous as the Turkish states attempt to deny the existence of Kurds through a policy of linguistic and cultural genocide. To the British state Kurds, but especially Turkish Kurds, are an annoyance. In Iraq and Iran Kurds are currently categorised as generally "good" as they are foreign policy allies. In Turkey Kurds are bad but for the same reasons of Realpolitik. In Britain this translates into a rather confused policy. Turkish Kurds primary objective is some autonomy within the context of a Turkey envisaged as part of the European Union in which their rights as a people are respected sharing similarities with the Scottish and Welsh experience. Meanwhile many Iraqi Kurds who identify with the Kurdish semi-autonomous KRG region of Iraq already enjoy what they see as the beginnings of an independent Kurdistan. They are free to enjoy their linguistic and cultural identity within what is essentially their own territory which they self govern. This is regarded as a serious threat by Ankara which on the one hand has tried to draw the Iraqi Kurdish leadership into an unholy alliance against their fellow Turkish Kurds and on the other has hoped that Turkey's recent attempt at a show of military strength will dissuade Iraqi Kurds from pursuing any greater level of independence or forming open alliances with their brethren.

As long as your cause or the injustice you are crying out to have addressed is of no consequence to the state in question all is well. Better still if you can claim to represent people suffering an injustice yet turn a blind eye to many of those people in return for patronage and respectability in the international community so much the better. When it is in the London governments political interest to do so it is happy to express its solidarity with the wronged and the oppressed. However, where there is British complicity in the crimes being protested against the voices must be silenced. It is usually enough just not to talk about the subject or to expertly spin it and rely upon media assets to run with the official line. The days of the expert and widely read journalist with time to research and analyse an issue were short and sweet. Friendly think tanks, off the record and professionally produced official state media briefings make the journalists life easier. In an age of information its reliability and trustworthiness - compared to its influence - has probably never been greater. Sound bites and easy pigeon holing are the order of the information overload society.

The Kurds in Turkey fit into the category of "people who embarrass us with a just cause that we don't want to support and we wish would shut up because they are upsetting our foreign policy priorities". The PKK recognised that militarily defeating the Turkish state under today's conditions was unrealistic. Rather the organisation aimed to win the Kurdish people a respected position of political strength from which they could negotiate a just resolution to the years of injustice. The desire for such a resolution was strengthened by the political changes that swept through Europe in the late 1980's and the PKK's unilateral ceasefires reflect this. Turkey failed to respond positively to any of these overtures. Turgut Ozal the only civilian president to make gestures towards a resolution died before anything could come from his apparent openness and the Turkish military regained its iron grip on the state. Further, the Turkish military has taken ceasefires and gestures of goodwill on the part of the PKK as signs of weakness and as an opportunity to increase its own offensive military activity.

The big question is why do the European Union, the British Government, the US government - along with many others - seem so intent on propping up the pseudo civilian Turkish state? In the 1990s a real opportunity existed to support the emergence of a civilian political system in Ankara that could have thrown off the military shackles that have for years held back Turkish democracy. Now a crude archaic xenophobic Turkish nationalism is re-entrenched in Ankara by which most civilian politicians are ham strung. Once again Kurdish MPs who entered parliament as DTP members face persecution and prosecution as Kurdish separatists. Writers are hounded by so called anti-terrorism laws and are charged with thought crimes against the Turkish state, or in the case of the writer Hrant Dink, and others, murdered.

During the Cold War Turkey was a NATO favourite. A blind eye was turned to the scorched earth policy pursued by the Turkish state against its Kurdish population. Despite this Kurds were for a while able to flee from their destroyed villages and from the torture chambers and gain asylum and the possibility of a fresh start in Europe. Many came to Britain. Here they settled, started businesses, raised families and supported those they left behind as best they could with many hoping one day to return home. Kurds were for a while able to organise politically in a way that at home was impossible with many Kurds from the Turkish region identifying with the Kurdistan Workers Party, the PKK, led by Mr Abdullah Ocalan.

The national and international proscription of the PKK and Congra Gel - the leading political representative organisations of many Turkish Kurds - is no more than a way of trying to avoid a just solution to the Kurdish Question. By banning the voice of one of the key players and by silencing Mr Ocalan, the man who represents the interests of many Kurds it was been hoped that the Kurdish question would go away. It was hoped that Kurds in Turkey would be content to watch while their fellow Kurds in Northern Iraq enjoyed what was perversely denied to them. By arbitrarily declaring the Kurdish national liberation movement in Turkey "terrorist" while at the same time belatedly embracing it -Realpolitik again - in Iraq and Iran as legitimate and worthy the west has underscored its hypocrisy.

It is usual in conditions of conflict for those who wish to broker peace to press, in the case of warring parties, for a cessation of hostilities to allow for negotiations to take place, usually facilitated by a third party. In Northern Ireland the government in London held regular talks with representatives of the IRA. Similarly in the Middle East talks between Palestinian and Israeli representatives have taken place despite the continued bloodshed. In Turkey the PKK has repeatedly demonstrated its serious desire for a political resolution to the conflict and a just peace. Turkish and international commentators have repeatedly ignored or poured scorn on these efforts as not being serious despite the extreme strategic disadvantage the PKK has exposed itself to on these occasions and the gestures of goodwill which in the face of previous failures to gain reciprocation could appear foolish. Not once has Turkey dared to try to call the PKK's bluff. What would Turkey have to loose? If Turkey really thinks the Kurdish movement is not serious what better way to show it than offering to talk? The international community with its states people normally so eager to add involvement in peace processes to their CV's has similarly failed miserably to offer its services as peace-broker preferring instead to criminalise the peacemakers.

Attacking communities by banning the organisations with which they identify without any discussion or right to recourse is not an approach that is designed to increase understanding or to reassure those who have fled persecution. By creating a discourse in which all perceived enemies may be bundled together as a single enemy means that it is no longer necessary to examine what it is that any of these groups or individuals have allegedly done to deserve the exclusionary label "terrorist". To label an individual or group "terrorist" is enough to put it beyond the pale, to de-legitimise any cause they may have and excuse the labellers from any responsibility to address fairly and justly any wrongs which have caused the action which has led to the labelling.

Unless this means of silencing opposition and dissent is challenged, especially as it is used against the migrant community, we can expect this system of governance to become normalised. Already civil rights have been eroded. The most vulnerable parts of the community and the least able to defend themselves are the first to have been targeted. The machinery of authoritarianism is being put into place even if it is not being fully used. The checks and balances that have long been fought for are being whittled away for, we are reassured, our own safety and security.

We live as always in a world governed very much by relations of economic interest and power commonly expressed through violence. Over the centuries Europe has been one of the most violent continents, yet it has also had its share of peacemakers. Altiero Spinelli one of the original visionaries behind the project of European Union believed that only through unity, and the sharing of common values could peace come to the continent. While today's EU is probably far from what Spinelli dreamed of it still represents something positive in its unification of countries long divided. The EU, in theory at least, offers the possibility of a federal Europe, a Europe of regions breaking down traditional notions of statehood. As such the EU has the possibility, if it so wished, to help to bring peace to areas of conflict including Turkey. Kurdish leader Mr Abdullah Ocalan has proposed just such a post-nationalist solution for Turkeys Kurdish people. Even in the absence of an ideal solution the EU must not be allowed to abdicate responsibility for a resolution of the Kurdish Question during Turkeys long running accession process. The freedoms enshrined in European and international law guaranteeing the right to linguistic and cultural freedoms and involvement in self government should be paramount. However, Kurds need the support of those who recognise this right and place it above crude short-term economic or strategic interests. The Kurdish people have a plan for peace. The Kurdish movements Peoples Defence Force, the HPG, are ready to support a ceasefire and to join a just peace process. For over a decade the Kurdish people in Turkey have been trying to engage in sincere peace initiatives only to be ignored or attacked. There can be few examples of where a party to a conflict has been so eager to see it resolved yet has been so consistently ignored or persecuted.

So there are a number of things here. Firstly there is the unresolved Kurdish Question and the reasons for the lack of resolution which I have tried to highlight. It is essential that even while Kurds themselves are criminalised for their efforts towards a peaceful resolution of their predicament that their allies continue to lobby and to be a constant thorn in the side of the British Government, the EU and Turkey. Business as usual is more convenient, but the opportunity exists to challenge this if we want to take it.

Secondly, looking at the wider picture, there is the issue of the political banning, the terrorism designations and the endless additions to the already extensive "anti-terror" legislation. Criminalisation of communities is not going to help resolve the root causes of the issues that have been used to excuse criminalisation. There are already sufficient laws on the statute books to prosecute criminal activity. To criminalise people for their political or religious affiliations, even if we find them objectionable, goes against the grain of the liberal democratic principles that our political systems claim to uphold.

Thirdly, by failing to acknowledge and support calls for justice from a whole host of wronged peoples we leave ourselves open to accusations of guilt by association which in turn may lead to acts of violence resulting from frustration or calculated cynical exploitation of a situation.

In the case of the Kurds in Turkey we are looking at a disciplined and organised people with a liberal agenda which should be easily understood and supported in Brussels. Ranged against it is an anachronistic Turkish military holding back Turkey's entry into the twenty-first century and suffocating Turkey's fledgling civil society and potential. Those in Turkey who wish to see the end of military control of political, economic and cultural life need and deserve our support. We must not allow the poison that permeates Turkish society to seep still further into the politics of Europe.

Ventotene Manifesto

In June 1941, Spinelli and a small group of fellow prisoners completed the Ventotene Manifesto, a document in support of a new European federalist movement. Because of a need for secrecy and a lack of proper materials at the time, the Manifesto was written on cigarette papers and concealed in the false bottom of a tin box. It was then circulated through the Italian Resistance, and was later adopted as the programme of the Movimento Federalista Europeo, which Spinelli founded in August 1943. The Manifesto has since been published in Italian and a number of other languages.The Manifesto puts forward proposals for creating a European federation of states, the primary aim of which was to tie European countries so closely together that they would no longer be able to go to war with one another. As in many European left-wing political circles, this sort of move towards federalist ideas was argued as a reaction to the destructive excesses of nationalism. The ideological underpinnings for a united Europe can thus be traced to the hostility of nationalism.