- For Turkish-Kurdish equality, there is no other way than a federation. This is not division, but the sharing of power. It is the stage before an independent state. It gives the right to separate. - The mentality that relies on Turkish dominance in Turkey will not ease the tension. At the same time, no one will accept a mentality that limits Turkish dominance. This is where the real problem lies. I do not have any doubts that Turkey wants to take Kirkuk. If Turkey thinks she is strong enough she won’t hesitate. This is a very clear intention. Kurds think like this as well.
NESE DUZEL
WHY? Serafettin Elci
Turkey’s reaction to the emergence of a possibility for the establishment of an independent Kurdistan in Northern Iraq again pointed to the existence of the Kurdish question in Turkey. Ankara, and those who support its official policy, expressed their opinions on the events in Northern Iraq. Many opinions from the Turkish perspective were publicised in the media regarding this matter. However, the opinions of Kurds in Turkey on this matter were not publicised on the same scale. Perhaps this single truth itself was revealing enough of the seriousness of the Kurdish question in Turkey. Therefore, we talked to Serafettin Elci, who is among the most prominent Kurdish intellectuals and well known for being frank and honest; who once both served as minister during a period and then was ‘sentenced’ as a minister for saying “I am Kurdish’, about how Kurds in Turkey viewed the possibility of an independent Kurdish state being set up in Northern Iraq, what they were expecting to be done in Turkey, what their complaints were and what they thought of Turkey’s Northern Iraq policy. The Democratic Mass Party, of which Serafettin Elci was founder and chairman, was recently closed and he is currently in preparation to set up a new party.
Turkey is preparing to become a member of the European Union. This means, “all citizens will definitely be equal.” Within such conditions, do you still find a Kurdish-Turkish differentiation important?
If the state represents all its citizens and protects everyone’s rights on an equal level, then a differentiation among citizens won’t be necessary.
Don’t you support the idea of federalism anymore?
No, I still do. Peoples have the right to govern themselves. Different peoples can live under the same roof as partners of the state.
Isn’t the understanding of statehood based on ethnicity, an understanding of statehood that is outdated in this day and age?
The individuals who will best rule a certain people in a region are the individuals who are members of that people. Because, they will best understand that people. They will know the circumstances, the past [and] the geography of that people.
Can a race only be governed best by someone from the same race?
There is no rule that a race is best governed by someone from the same race? The model of government is important. Because, dictators that oppress humans also emerge from within the people. The best model of government in our times is democracy. Within a democratic framework, if a race is best governed by someone from that race, than this would be the ideal situation, instead of a foreigner governing.
If the best model of government is democracy, why is additionally moving towards a federation the best solution?
Equality cannot be achieved without a federation. Because, the central government has a single official language and a single language in education. If you impose the language of the dominant on the whole society as the language of education, then there is no equality.
Wouldn’t it be enough for Turkish-Kurdish equality if citizens whose mother tongue is not Turkish are able to open schools that provide education in their own languages or take it as optional subjects like the “cultural rights” that are in currency in the EU countries?
No, it wouldn’t be. The equality in the European Union is in basic human rights. The recognised rights are individual rights. These are the equal human rights that can be required by every citizen. Yet, one should understand the importance of group rights. These rights should be used collectively. If you can’t use them collectively, then you can’t say, “You go and open your own school, if you can’t go as an individual, and undertake your education.”
What you call an individual right, such as the right to education in one’s mother tongue, which is a cultural right, is already at its basic a group right. Isn’t the most important thing that all citizens have equal rights?
Equality can’t be achieved through empty talk. You tell a group, “Go and carry out education with your money in your language.” To the language and culture of the other group, you give all the resources of the state and the valid education in the country is the education carried out in that language. And your diploma has no value at all. This is not equality. The language of that group and the education carried out in that language has to be valid as well. In the areas where Kurds are majority, the state should carry out the education in Kurdish.
Would not this create a state with two official languages?
That is the end result anyway. There will be two official languages. This can only happen in a federation. There can be two official languages in a federal system. Currently, the Iraqi state has two official languages. The language of the Catalans in Spain is the official language only in their own region but the Walloon and Flemish in Belgium are both official languages. One of these paths could be taken.
Isn’t the federal formula you are suggesting the phase before independence? Federalism, isn’t it the road to independence?
Of course. Federalism is the phase before an independent state. A mutual union is established with a free will and this also includes the right to separate with a free will from the state. But even if you told a citizen, who is happy with the state, to separate, that citizen wouldn’t. Referendums were held in Scotland and Wales and the people rejected separation because people wanted to together benefit from Britain’s blessings. People will look to separate when they are uncomfortable with their state.
During a period where states are transferring their sovereignty, the EU being an example, how reasonable is it to move towards tiny new states?
If everyone accepts concepts such as a European state, European nation, or a global state and global nation, then there won’t be any problems. But what you suggest is, “Turks should enter the EU by protecting their Turkishness and Kurds should enter by abandoning their Kurdishness.”
But that is not what the EU process is about. This is a process that changes and democratises the structure of the state in Turkey. A system will be established where all the citizens are equal. Isn’t it like that?
Can you even consider the thought of Turks abandoning their language? Would the Turks ever say that they want English to be their language?
Why should they? Doesn’t every state in the EU have an official language?
Exactly. If the Turks are not abandoning their language, why shouldn’t the Kurds also want their language to be an official language? Turkey can be an applicant to the EU partnership as much as it wants; Turkey does not share the same mentality with Europe. If the European mentality becomes dominant in Turkey as well, like in Spain then these issues will already cease to be subject of debate.
You are Kurdish, a politician and Turkish citizen. Your…
I am not a Turkish citizen; I am a citizen of the Turkish Republic.
Shouldn’t you have projects and suggestions on behalf of everyone living in the country instead of only the Kurds? Don’t you see a lack in the assertion, “I only produce political projects for the Kurds.”
To defend the Kurdish cause doesn’t mean neglecting the problems of other citizens of Turkey. But the state has made itself such a prisoner of the Kurdish question that, even an implementation that is known for sure to be for the benefit of the country is viewed with the anxiety of whether it will benefit the Kurds as well. The mentality that relies on Turkish dominance in Turkey will not ease the tension. At the same time, no one will accept a mentality that limits Turkish dominance. This is where the real problem lies.
Is independence a secret wish of all the Kurds?
In my opinion, it is a secret wish. If every nation has a state, this is also the wish of the Kurds. But if within a state you have everything you think you should have, than there is also no need for an independent state. To have all the rights is possible in a federal system. At any rate, federalism is the sharing of the capacity to use power, not the division of the state.
Kirkuk emerged as a serious problem. In your opinion, should Kurds in Northern Iraq establish a state that also includes Kirkuk?
Wishes and reel politics are different matters. At this moment, reel politics is not in favour of the Kurds establishing an independent Kurdistan. Kurds won’t try to establish an independent Kurdistan that America doesn’t approve. Currently, the USA does not support an independent Kurdish state. In any case, the Kurds in Iraq want important functions in the central government in Baghdad. But, the Kurds have certain demands. If these demands are met, they won’t consider separating from Iraq.
If these demands are not met?
Then they will push for independence. The first demand is, Kurds will not accept a state model that is not secular, democratic and federal. The second demand is regarding the borders of the Kurdistan federal state. 45 thousand square km of the total 85 thousand of Kurdistan’s geography in Iraq is today administered by the Kurds. The Kurds want the Kurdistan geography to be within the border of the Kurdish federal state. Kurds in Iraq will not concede on the issue of the Kurds’ ownership of Kirkuk. But this doesn’t mean Kirkuk will completely become a Kurdish city. All the groups living in Kirkuk should have a say in the Kirkuk administration in accordance with its population.
It looks like the rights of the Turkmen population in Kirkuk are being sidelined. Attempts are being made to alter the demographics of the region through bringing in Kurds from the outside. Talking about Kurds being oppressed, are the Kurds with their first chance now preparing to oppress others?
I don’t think so. Barzani says, “If no one defends Turkmen rights then I will defend it.” Majority of Turkmens did not have any disagreement with Saddam’s regime. Turkmens are careful not to end up in disagreement with dominant powers. This was the case both during period of British administration and the monarchy. The dangerous element for Iraq’s central government is the Kurds. If the number of Kurds expelled by Saddam is two hundred thousand, the number of expelled Turkmens is five, ten thousand. No one is attempting to change the demographics of Kirkuk.
If the demographics are not being changed, then why was the first thing the Kurds did after the USA occupied Iraq to loot the records of the population registry in Kirkuk?
We don’t know if this is true or not. It is a certain group that claims this.
Didn’t we watch this looting on the TV?
Now, something like that can happen during the conditions that prevailed in those days. A lot of placed were looted in Iraq. My observation based both on my personal talks with the Kurdish leaders and their statements is that except for the Turkmen Front, which is a spy of Turkey, and the Turkmen Nationalist Action Party, which is organised by the MHP [Turkey’s Nationalist action Party, WL], Kurds don’t have any problems at all with the Turkmen.
In that case, the federal solution you propose for Turkey, would you propose a Kurdish-Turkmen federation in Northern Iraq?
The condition for the Turkmen to establish a federal structure does not exist. Because they do not have a geographic area where they are the majority and where they can say, “The administration of this place should be mine.” They do not historically have a region of which they can claim the rights. The Turkmens are a national minority there. They cannot be the principal founders.
Doesn’t looking at every problem through the perspective of nationalism and race, in an age where the world is changing rapidly, blind people in a sense? Is it easy to grasp such a complex world by looking at it from a single perspective?
The nation and race is a reality. The existence of nations and races doesn’t mean the elimination of other races. Working for the benefit of your people and nation is a legitimate action.
Do the Kurds think that Turkey wants to take Kirkuk?
I do not have any doubts on this matter. Kurds believe this as well. If Turkey thinks she is strong enough she won’t hesitate. This is a very clear intention. The concept of retrieving lost Ottoman lands is very widespread on both the state and public level.
Have you considered the possibility that by emphasising your Kurdishness like this and talking about a federation, you have become an ally of Turkish nationalism in a sense and established a conservative alliance of different races?
I would not even dream of allying myself with conservative nationalists elements. When Kurds put forward their legitimate and just demands, there is a type of understanding that tends to label them as a version of Kurdish nationalism. I am of an understanding, which is liberal social democrat.
Can’t rights be defended without emphasising race and as “equal human rights, equal citizenship rights?”
If this perception is correct, then there should not be any states in the world. While some have states, why should others be deprived? Why shouldn’t it be one’s right to have a state?
If a Kurdish state is established in Northern Iraq, will Turkey’s Kurdish citizens want to join that state?
If the Kurdish citizens would be in their current miserable state, obviously they would prefer to be the citizens of a state just next-door belonging to the same people. There could be those who join if there is a developed, peaceful Kurdish state there. But if one is happy in the current state, if one can benefit equally from all the blessings of the state and especially if this state is a candidate to the EU and Kurds are able to benefit from the blessings of Europe, why would a Kurd go and become the citizen of a less developed small state?
There are many Turkish intellectuals who say let’s abandoned the Kurd-Turk division and everyone becomes equal. You,…
No there aren’t. There are many Turkish intellectuals who do not pursue racist nationalism but they are in reality “cultural nationalists.” Because the argument they defend is, “Okay Kurds are our equal brothers but they should be like Turks. Everyone should be equal as Turks.” However, the issue is to see as equal what is different from you, to be equals as Kurds and Turks.
Many Turkish intellectuals defend equality without at all emphasising their Turkishness. Among Kurdish intellectuals on the other hand these kinds of inclusive opinions are not heard that much. In your opinion, why is it so important to be a Kurd? It is a matter of belonging, defending your nation.
Kurds do not like Turkish nationalism and have suffered immensely from it, yet isn’t there a double standard in the way Kurdish nationalism is exalted?
There is nothing like exalting nationalism among Kurds. Kurds do not claim to be dominant over others.
Will the Kurdish nationalists in Northern Iraq do to Turkmens what Turkish nationalist have done to the Kurds, once they become dominant?
If they do, then we will before everyone and more than anyone be against this. We won’t be quite just because we are Kurds.
As a Kurdish politician and citizen of Turkey, would you prefer the dream of becoming the president of the Turkish Republic to the dream of becoming the president of a federal Kurdish state?
If as a Kurd, I have the possibility of becoming the president of the Republic of Turkey, than I would prefer this to becoming the president of a Kurdish federal state. But as a Kurd, not by becoming a Turk. Saying, “I am Kurdish, my origins are Kurdish” is not enough. My language should be valid like Turkish. In a federal system, Kurds will get the chance to become Turkey’s president. Look at Talabani, he is saying, “I want to become the president of Iraq.”
Isn’t there any other way than the federal system to achieve Turkish-Kurdish equality?
I don’t think there is. As long as the official ideology based on the state’s Turkism ideology is not abandoned, talking about Turkish-Kurdish equality is absurd…
The above interview was published in the Turkish daily Radikal on the 14th of February, 2005, and was translated for KurdishMedia.com from the Turkish original by Welat Lezgin.
See also Serafettin Elci: Kurds need to assure Turks
