Turkey is wasting more points in the peace process with the Kurds
Turkey is wasting more points in the peace process with the Kurds
There is no doubt that the Middle East is the cradle of civilizations and heavenly religions, and there is no doubt that this region has contributed a lot to humanity on all levels, and that this geographical area has been a scene of almost continuous conflicts throughout history. These conflicts took the form of clashes between the civilizations that inhabited the region, and they evolved into struggles for influence in each stage, to develop into religious conflicts and then sectarian conflicts that continue to this day. After the Ottoman Empire reached the end of its assumed life span at the beginning of the 19th century, the colonial dream or instinct of Western countries in the world in general and the region in particular became active, and colonial plans began to be drawn up based on the narrow interests of those countries, without any consideration for human values or ethics.
The region was divided on the basis of criteria that were not related to geography, history, population distribution, or race in any way, and this division became the nucleus of the problems that would arise between the components of the region later on. The inheritance of the “sick man” (the Ottoman Empire) was distributed on this basis. As for most of the problems whose effects are currently apparent, they are: the Treaty of Lausanne, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Balfour Declaration, in which the British leader and minister promised the Jews the right to establish a religious state in the land of Palestine, indicating their religious entitlement based on what is called the Temple of Solomon and the sacred “Wailing Wall” among the Jews. Also, further division of Kurdistan, after it had previously been divided between the Persian and Ottoman empires, by annexing parts of it to both Syria and Iraq, the newly established nation-states according to the modern divisions that were made, in an unofficial announcement of the beginning of the era of the nation-state, in which Britain is considered its pioneer in the region and the world.
The Middle East leads the world in terms of instability:
It’s no secret to anyone that the conflicts in the Middle East are dominating the world without question; for multiple reasons, perhaps the most important of which is the neglect of the major powers, and also the lack of awareness among the region’s inhabitants of the extent or scale of the conspiracy against them. Most of the conflicts in the region are concentrated in the form of religious conflict, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or in the form of sectarian conflict, as is the case between Saudi Arabia and Iran; the former aims to lead the Sunni Islamic world, while the latter aims to lead the Shia Islamic world, or in the form of a national conflict, with one nationality seeking to dominate another’s right to live on its land with its culture, language, and preservation of its history. Perhaps the Middle East is currently experiencing its worst state, with conflicts and the region’s people not focusing on finding appropriate solutions to their problems, instead waiting and constantly looking to external powers to find solutions for them, while those external powers are essentially part of these problems, stirring them up and interfering in them according to their interests. The term “the new Middle East” or “the great Middle East” introduced at the beginning of the current century by the dominant powers in global politics and economy indicates that the past hundred years must be changed, and previous divisions adjusted based on the interests and changes on the ground. The goal, ostensibly or in form, was to change the ruling systems, which had reached the peak of power at similar times or in a similar manner, through violence, militarization, and military coups. The winds of change began with the overthrow of the Iraqi Ba’ath Party regime and its president, Saddam Hussein, in 2003, and the application of experiments in Iraq to shape the policies of the remaining systems and how to implement the transition. However, as the American High Commissioner for Iraq after the regime was toppled, Paul Bremer, admits in his memoirs, “we did not find an honest man to govern Iraq after Saddam,” of course (according to his view and that of his Western government), and he also says, “we were wrong to destroy the government institutions that should have been for the people, managed by them and under their supervision and oversight.”
All of the above indicates a condescending view of the people in the region managing themselves, and later on, the revolutions of the people against their rulers, which began at the end of 2010, sparked from North Africa, and soon spread to the inflamed and festering Middle East as a result of the poor living conditions in these countries due to militarization and dictatorial powers governing and dominating them and their resources.
The occupied countries for Kurdistan and the policies of suppression towards everyone-thing Kurdish:
We cannot compare or differentiate between any occupied part of Kurdistan with another, or one colonial policy with another, as most of them have been similar and convergent. This is because any awakening in any part will have its repercussions on other parts. Nevertheless, the Kurdish revolutions have not ceased from one another, and the Kurds have not relinquished their national rights. These revolutions have been led by religious leaders at times and secular leaders at other times, and some of these revolutions have been decisively eliminated militarily or through the assassination of their leaders, and so on.
In Turkey, with the beginning of the 1970s, leftist student movements influenced by Marxist-Leninist thought began to move in a different direction from the preceding movements, starting with organized revolutionary struggle based on organization and revolutionary discipline, culminating in armed revolutionary struggle. This came after the belief that the Turkish state led by the military could not be negotiated with politically unless accompanied by force. The “August 15th Leap” in 1984 was the most prominent event in the struggle for freedom, equality, and legitimate rights.
The paths to resolving the Kurdish issue in Turkey:
The timeline and location for resolving the Kurdish issue in Turkey, which started early – to somewhat extent – it’s not hided to anyone. There was a political breakthrough at the beginning of the 1990s, shortly after less than a decade of military conflict. Perhaps the leaders and politicians at that time believed in the impossibility of a military solution or that military solutions would not yield any results. Indeed, talks between the parties began through Kurdish mediators. However, the hidden hand that controls the shadow governments in Turkey had a different opinion on everything that was happening. The first attempt to reach a political solution to the Kurdish issue in Turkey ended with the death or assassination of the Turkish president (Turgut Ozal), who is considered one of the prominent leaders who governed Turkey since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who is considered the founder of the “New Ottoman” project. After that, it became clear how committed the Turkish leadership and extremist nationalists were in their approach to the Kurdish issue. This approach was translated into the capture of the Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan in February 1999. However, since the issue is a matter of a people and a nation, it became more complicated rather than being eliminated or suppressed. As the new millennium began, the political Islam trend represented by the “Justice and Development Party” came to power in Turkey. This trend was unable to significantly change the existing reality, especially as the country was going through a difficult economic phase. The country’s economic situation was deteriorating, but due to the focus on this aspect, the ruling party was somewhat able to improve the country’s economic situation. As revolutions spread to the region – as mentioned earlier – the Turkish government attempted to ride the reformist trend and address issues before they escalated. Indeed, after more than two decades, specifically in the spring of 2013, an attempt was made to open up to resolving the Kurdish issue within Turkey through peaceful means, away from the sound of weapons. However, what happened after that may be more significant than those who superficially manage Turkey. The rapid and successive events and developments were decisive in aborting this attempt and returning to square one. We can present the stages of increasing division in the following historical sequence, but not exclusively.
1- The entry of radical Islam into the Syrian arena, and the Turkish government’s preference for this trend over the secular trend represented by the Kurds on its southern borders.
2- The commitment of the “Justice and Development” government and its president Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the international Muslim Brotherhood movement, in terms of principles and the ideological beliefs that govern the movement.
3- The entry of the international coalition forces to combat terrorism in Syria, and the confrontation of radical Islamic movements, in addition to forming an alliance with local Kurdish forces with liberation tendencies and their interaction with them for the first time.
4- Exploiting the alleged military coup in Turkey to consolidate and deepen power, and to make the necessary adjustments to strengthen control over state institutions and carry out desired constitutional amendments.
5- Breaking free from Western influence to distance from the Western agenda, and replacing it with the leadership of the Islamic world, especially the Sunni, in response to the expansion of “Shiite” Iranian influence in the region.
What does the Turkish regime really want?
The Turkish regime is no different from any other dictatorial regime leading a country, and it seems that the pleasure of power has affected it and reached the core, so it has reached the peak stage of love for control and the transfer of power between family members. This is evident from the leaks coming from the presidential palace in the escalating conflict between members of the Erdogan family, reminiscent of the history of the Ottoman state and the struggle of brothers, and the process of elimination in order to reach the top of the pyramid in governance, (maybe this talk is just claims for now, but the coming days will clarify the scene more). The fundamental problem is not with the educated class in society, as this class is fully aware of the reality of Erdogan and how he exploits religion and makes it a tool to achieve his narrow goals and interests. This was clearly evident during the natural disaster (earthquake) that affected both Turkey and Syria in February of last year. But the fundamental problem lies with the general public, especially those who follow the “herd policy” behind religious currents under the banner of Islam and doctrine, and beyond. In the current war in Gaza, the Turkish regime is trying to exploit this war to serve its interests to the fullest extent, by portraying itself as the protector of religion and the lion of the Sunnis, while at the same time practicing what the Israelis do to the Palestinians, and perhaps even more so against the Kurds in Turkey and also in northern and eastern Syria, with flimsy pretexts such as maintaining its national security, and attempting to transfer the idea of moving the Palestinians from Gaza to the areas previously occupied by it, in which many settlements were built, as well as the recent events in Deir Al-Zor. The Turkish scene cannot be acquitted, nor can Turkish intervention be ruled out, through its factions deployed in Serekaniye (Ras al-Ain) and also the factions deployed in west of the Euphrates. We can also link the relationship between them through the Sunni ideology in Deir Al-Zor and its closer ties to the Turks than any other party.
In conclusion, the Turks in general are wasting more opportunities to get closer to the Kurds at the expense of religious and doctrinal agendas. The attempts of the Turkish occupation state continue to strike the infrastructure of the self-administration areas in northern and eastern Syria, and to destroy vital and economic facilities and civil institutions, an exaggerated reaction against civilians. This coincided with the signing of the social contract by the people and components of the region in an agreement on the necessity of coexistence among them. The Turkish state cannot continue indefinitely in this stubbornness to erase rights and stack prisons with more demands for freedoms and rights, you can’t “cover the sun with a sieve” just like “burying your head in the sand” policy can’t continue indefinitely.
The experience of previous wars and military disasters confirms that there is no alternative to sitting down and dialogue to find sustainable solutions. The Turkish government must understand this point as it should. Therefore, wasting more opportunities, time, and money is nothing but a loss for Turkey “the people” before Turkey “the government”.
