 |
Turkey and the PKK: Yeah, Don’t Talk…That Works |
 |
Not only do we not talk with our enemies, we encourage our allies not to talk to them either.
The United States said Thursday it was closely watching Turkey’s campaign against separatist Kurdish fighters based in Iraq and firmly backed its ally’s refusal to negotiate with the rebels.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino also said Washington was “encouraged” by talks between Ankara and Baghdad about efforts to “beat back” extremists from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).
“We also continue to watch the situation in northern Iraq. As we have said before, the PKK is a common enemy. We have been strongly supporting Turkey in its efforts to combat the PKK,” she told reporters.
“We have encouraged dialogue and coordination between the United States, Turkey and Iraq, but we have not and we will not negotiate or hold talks with the PKK, nor do we expect Turkey to do so,” she said.
Thanks Dana. Your boss’ policy of no talks has been pretty effective in bringing about change, hasn’t it? From Afghanistan to Palestine? Or is it that we only support the talks that make us feel warm and fuzzy, but have no political will to hold substantive talks to resolve issues?
And Turkey’s strikes in Northern Iraq were also really effective, weren’t they? Not at solving the problem, I mean, but at establishing a precedent for future strikes? That’s good, right, because no one would argue that these strikes were a clear failure, would they? I guess Turkey shouldn’t even talk to its own Kurds…and I guess we shouldn’t help in that process.
The inability of the United States to rein in Turkey, and the dangers the Turkish invasion poses to Iraqi Kurdistan, demonstrate that a better approach is needed. The core of Turkey’s “Kurdish problem” is not the PKK. It is Turkey’s denial of basic political and cultural rights to its Kurds, who are about one-fifth of the population. Any resolution of the decades-old conflict was unthinkable because often there were no credible nonviolent Kurdish partners for the ever-suspicious Turkish state to talk to. Such partners now exist and the United States should help Turkey to recognize this.
In July 2007, Turkey’s Kurds elected 20 members of Parliament from the Democratic Society Party, or DTP. A Kurdish nationalist group, DTP also has 54 mayors in largely Kurdish municipalities in Turkey’s southeast. These democratically elected politicians are not PKK members. They may sympathize with PKK fighters - who often hail from the same towns and villages. And contrary to government demands, they refuse to label the rebels “terrorists.” But DTP politicians oppose violence, whether from the state or the rebels. They call for a state-rebel cease-fire and want to work with Turkish officials to end the conflict.
These elected DTP officials matter because they articulate a Kurdish case separate from PKK violence. In November 2007, DTP called for decentralizing power to Turkey’s regions, the first time this Kurdish party has presented a viable political vision. Unlike the PKK, whose demands have ranged from independence to broad cultural rights, DTP’s ideas are not punctuated by gunfire.
Unfortunately, Turkey has responded with hostility, not dialogue. Turkey’s chief prosecutor may shutter DTP because he claims that statements by party officials, including using the taboo word “Kurdistan” and praising a PKK cease-fire, are tantamount to supporting terrorism.
“Hostility, not dialogue.” Where have I heard that before?
“These elected DTP officials matter because they articulate a Kurdish case separate from PKK violence.”
No they dont. The DTP never recognized the PKK as a terrorist organizaton.
This is the likely text of a discussion between the government of Turkey and the PKK.
PKK: We want an independent Kurdistan inside Turkey!
Turkey: No.
PKK: We want you to negotiate with us!
Turkey: Only if it is the terms for your surrender.
Do you actually have a more plausible scenario given the nature of Turkish politics or it is just wishful thinking? Also just how much influence do you think the USA has? Turkey has been VERY consistent at doing whatever it feels is in Turkey’s own interests regardless of what the USA wants, so who the hell cares what Dana Perino says?
There is always room to move in negotiations, there is always leverage. Get the two sides talking and you get the two sides to start compromising. It would be a bit naive to think Turkey only wants the PKK to surrender and the PKK only wants independence and there is no middle ground anywhere. In life that’s just never the case.
I agree, Jason. All of this talk about giving away leverage by agreeing to dialog is nonsense. Sometimes just hearing the other side’s grievances is the biggest step toward resolving differences.
Just to clarify, though, does the discouragement from talking with the PKK stem from the group’s recognition (by some) as a “terrorist” organization?
That’s my understanding, yes.
“Sometimes just hearing the other side’s grievances is the biggest step toward resolving differences.”
And sometimes crushing them militarily resolves the situation too. But the real key to understanding the realities here is Turkish domestic politics.
Do you really think the grievances are not very well understood? This is not exactly a recent problem. Moreover Abdullah Gül is distrusted enough by the secular nationalists in Turkey (such as the army but by no means limited to just them), so the notion he would pick a fight with the army (and do not kid yourself, THAT is what appearing to go ’soft’ on the PKK would do) is a tad unrealistic.
Suggest a look at both recent Turkish history and resent Turkish action to see that the Turks are by no means convinced that there is no a military solution to this (and regardless of how one feels about the Kurds, Turkey is the local neighbourhood 600 lbs gorilla, so it probably is indeed in within their capabilities to ’solve’ this problem with a hammer). Moreover the Kurdish administration in Northern Iraq has been astonishingly restrained in their condemnation of the Turkish incursion (i.e. very pro forma calls for restraint and astonishing statements that the Peshmerga has NOT been told to take action against the Turks), Why? Because seeing the PKK taken down a few pegs is by no means against the interests of certain factions in Kurdish Iraq. Thus saying “talk and settle your grievances” is pretty much going to achieve the following:
1. It will make annoy the Turks, with whom US relations are already somewhat strained.
2. It will demonstrate just how little influence the US really has in Turkey in this cold war era when the Turks ignore the advice.
3. It will make the US look politically weak in the area, which suits neither the Kurdish administration (who are not the PKK) nor the government in Bahgdad, nor the USA… but suits the Islamists just fine.
So… the US has unenthusiastically backed the Turks because there is no *real world* upside to annoying them, given there is little leverage to use to change their mind (i.e. the US needs Turkish cooperation more than the Turks need US cooperation). I am guessing the State Department figures the best solution is a quick Turkish military success (which has indeed been forthcoming), which hopefully puts the PKK out of the picture, at least for a while, as it is hardly as if there are not already enough things to worry about ion Iraq.
The main issue is a historical one. Can you point to one terrorist organization that has been defeated militarily? By that I mean, so defeated that they closed up shop and went home? I can’t.
It does not have to go home, it just has to be contained… but now that you mention it, sure, Bader-Meinhof? Blank Hand? Red Brigade? Action Directe?
And I could mention some larger groups, Hezbollah, Hamas, the IRA, Al-Qaeda, the FARC. These groups have all been targets of large military campaigns, and they all survived.
Sure, but then *I* wasn’t claiming otherwise
Also all the ones you mentioned have singularly failed to achieve their stated goals. Last time I looked Israel was still there, Ulster was still part of the UK, the ‘Great Satan’ is now has *more* people in the Ummah since 9/11 happened, and communists are not even close to gaining control of Columbia. As they say in the cat macros: FAIL. So shooting at these folks does seem to have considerable value.
That said, least you think I am nice Mr. Rumsfeld posting under a pseudonym, I am all for political solution where political solution are both viable and not grotesquely immoral. I just don’t see much value to pretending dialogue is always a meaningful option.
Political solutions are indeed the goal. That said, I guess I come down on the side of talking is never really a bad thing. I can’t think of a good example of any problem that was solved in the modern world solely through use of military force. In fact, the cutting off of diplomatic relations usually ends up boding ill for all parties involved in the long term (see Iran for instance). Certainly there are other options that must be considered, including sanctions and military force, but talking I can’t see as a bad thing.
What is this criticism about Turkey’s politics when the PKK is killing people? “Hostility, not dialogue”? I think the hostility began with the PKK bombings in Turkey. That’s why Turkey went into Iraq — remember? Unbelievable what bias can do for people!
How many Kurds has Turkey killed in recent decades? How many Turks (and others) have been killed by Kurds inside Turkey?
Turkey’s politics are not aberrant. They’re like the rest of the world’s — always self-interested. Do you expect a nation’s government to act outside of its self-interest? Do you expect it to do so in a context which makes “selflessness” equivalent to giving into terrorists?
The Turks treat-ed the Kurds in a way which marginalized their ability to express their culture. This is getting much better, and it has been for at least a decade.
The suggestion to bring non-violent Kurdish representatives into talks with the Turkish government is a good one. However, there is always a Kurdish voice in Turkey. The representatives hyped in this article do not denounce the PKK’s tactics, and they do use the word Kurdistan — which really *is* a dirty word.
How would you like it if the Mexican-Americans in America thought that Texas should be returned to Mexico, and began referring to Texas as part of “Greater Texico”? Would such a non-violent group, using such language, be engaged in talks with the US — or would the US reject them, especially if they refuse to denounce the horrific tactics of their more radical brethren?
We wouldn’t allow that to go on in a country that has only been ours for a few hundred years. Texas is ours.
Well, all of modern Turkey has been the land of the Turks for over 500 years. Do you expect them to deal with people who refer to part of their country by a name that implies possession by another group?
No. You don’t. Hold Turkey to the same standards as you hold other countries. Otherwise it’s racism and bias. Anti-turkism is nothing new. A thriving Muslim power is not something the rest of the world has taken kindly too — even the US, with all that Turkey does for it in terms of military access, dares to bring legislation to Congress which would condemn Turkey for the treatment of an ethnic group that rebelled and joined the enemy during war time — and all this before the US even officially apologizes for the full breadth of its thoroughgoing and long-lived betrayal and slaughter of the American Indians, and its forced isolation of Japanese-American citizens — Japanese-American citizens that had *not* rebelled.
Get off your horse. No country responds to terrorists any differently to terrorists, and groups with similar aspirations that refuse to condemn their terrorist counterparts. Finally, the treatment of Kurds within Turkey is a totally different matter, and those Kurds do have representation in Turkey, and their position has been advancing — and it should be advanced, advanced quite a bit from where it is, as far as it can be.
But talk of Kurdistan is unacceptable when that Kurdistan includes Turkish land. It implies blood, lots of blood. It implies war. No nation gives up land it has held for hundreds of years easily.
The best solution is for the Kurds in Turkey to work with Turkey on the solution to the problems that exist there, and for Turkey to blow the PKK off the map or for the PKK to stand down and stay down. (The PKK broke a longstanding ceasefire several years ago, apparently worried that it was being forgotten.) Iraq can have its Kurdistan region, or Kurdistan can split from Iraq. But just as any American would bristle over the idea of losing Texas, so will Turkey never give and quarter to those who speak of a Kurdistan that includes Turkish soil.
And that’s just like any other country on this earth — drop the anti-Turkism. Shedding a tear for the Kurds, and none for the Turks killed by the PKK, unbelievable.
And, BTW, if you don’t think the second largest military in NATO can’t have an effect on a terrorist group, you’re mistaken. The reason that the strikes weren’t extremely effective is that it was more of a show than anything. They erred on the side of caution, avoiding civilians at all costs, etc.
Why?
Because no country’s people would accept being bombed incessantly by terrorists without action being taken by the government. The Turks held out very long before taking action.
How would the US respond if 9/11 occurred every year? Well, that’s what it’s like in Turkey with the PKK bombings.
You should cheer our Turkish allies in their attempt to squash a terrorist threat; you should cheer our Turkish allies in the progress that they’re making regarding the position of Kurds in the country.