Kurds from Yesterday to Today

Speaking at the panel "Kurds from Yesterday to Today" held in Diyarbakır, sociologist-author Ismail Beşikçi said that Kurdistan was not even a colony, and that this was why the Kurds were in a very difficult situation. Writer Fuat Önen said that when the survival of the state is mentioned in Turkey, "the existence of the Kurdish people" is mentioned.

18.09.2022, Paz – 21:16

‘Kurds from Yesterday to Today’ panel in Diyarbakır

Ciwanên Netewî yên Kurdistanê – Kurdistan National Youth (CNK) organized a panel titled “Kurds from Yesterday to Today” at Mitanni Hotel in Diyarbak?r with the participation of renowned sociologist Ismail Beşikçi and intellectual writer Fuat Önen as speakers.

The panel moderated by Mürsel Ekici also included many intellectuals, politicians and guests.

Speaking in the first part of the panel titled “Kurds and Kurdistan in the early 20th century”, Ismail Beşikçi pointed out that Sykes-Picot was an important agreement on the division and fragmentation of Kurdistan.

“Why was Kurdistan not established?”

Explaining that Russia joined the agreement between Britain and France in May 1916, Beşikçi said, “This was put into practice on paper with the Lausanne Treaty of 24 July 1923. According to the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the mandates of Iraq, Jordan and Palestine were established under Britain. Syria and Lebanon mandates were established under France. Thus, the lands of the Ottoman Empire in Mesopotamia and the Middle East were divided. The important question here is; why was Kurdistan not established? Why was a Kurdistan mandate not established alongside the mandates of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine? Moreover, in the same period, for example in 1918-19, in the south of Kurdistan, Sheikh Mahmut Efendi was saying to Britain: ‘I am the King of Kurdistan, recognise me as the King of Kurdistan.’ The imperial states of the time, Britain and France, did not even think of establishing a Kurdistan for Mahmut Efendi, let alone a colonial Kurdistan.”

Pointing out that the 1920s was a period when the “right of nations to self-determination” was discussed the most, Beşikçi reminded that President Wilson in the USA, Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky in the Soviet Union made important speeches on the right of nations to self-determination and that there were important efforts in North Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia within the framework of this principle.

“Kurds and Kurdistan are not even colonies”

“It was in such a period that Kurdistan was divided, fragmented and partitioned,” Beşikçi said:

“This is a very important event for Kurds and Kurdistan. The disintegration of a person’s skeleton is like the disintegration of his brain. Today, despite having a population of 50 million and living in a country called Kurdistan, it has no representative in international organisations such as the United Nations and the Islamic Conference. It is not represented in these organisations. However, there are perhaps forty states with a population of less than 1 million in the UN. 57 states are members of the Islamic Conference. Among these, there are states with a population of less than one million. For example, the Gulf countries, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar have populations of less than one million. In the 27-member European Union, countries such as Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg have populations of less than one million. There are four states in the EU with populations larger than the Kurdish population. Germany, France, Italy and Spain. Why have the Kurds never had a state despite having such a large population? This is a very important question.

In the 1920s, a very negative image was created in Europe against Kurds and Kurdistan. How this image was created is important. It was a period when the right of nations to self-determination was discussed the most, but Kurdistan was fragmented, divided and partitioned during this period. We generally define the situation of Kurdistan and the Kurds as a colony. In fact, Kurds and Kurdistan are not even colonies. I wish it was a colony under Britain or France.”

“Kurdistan has been declared divided, fragmented and partitioned”

Comparing the colonies in Africa with the situation in Kurdistan, Beşikçi said that in the 16th century, European countries invaded Africa, colonised it and divided it into colonies.

Stating that in 1886 Britain, France, Italy, Holland and other colonialist states came together and made an agreement in Berlin and decided which country in Africa would be a colony of which state, Beşikçi said: “You see, each of the colonial countries in Africa has a certain border. But Kurdistan does not even have a border. So when we say colony, there is an identity here. A colony is a status. Kenya is a colony of England. Kenya has a status. Algeria is a colony of France. Algeria has a status. Each colony has a border, a different people, but is ruled by colonial governors. But when we look at Kurdistan, there is no such border. It is already said that there is no such place as Kurdistan, there is no such nation as Kurdistan. The right of nations to self-determination is being implemented in different countries, but Kurds are divided, fragmented, shared and each part is about to be destroyed separately.”

Stating that colonialists have the right to independence after a certain stage, Beşikçi said, “But Kurdistan is not like that. Kurdistan has been divided, fragmented and partitioned and each part of Kurdistan has come under the control of Iraq, Syria and other states and this will continue.”

Ismail Beşikçi reminded that in 1960, the UN General Assembly issued a declaration of independence for the colonies and colonial peoples, that the colonies were ruled by oppression and cruelty, and that it was decided to grant independence because there was no economic, social and cultural development under this oppression.

Beşikçi continued as follows:

“After World War II, colonies gradually gained their independence. Today there are 57 states in Africa. Of these, only four countries gained independence through armed struggle. In the others, independence was achieved through constitutional means. The National Liberation Front of Kenya or the National Liberation Front of Tanzania say to the British that they want the following. Britain says, “We don’t accept these demands of yours, but we can sit down and talk about this. They leave an open door. After a year and a half, two years, they left the UK. There is armed struggle in only four countries. Angola, Guinea, Mozambique and the French colony of Algeria. Let’s think about it this way: is oppression and exploitation more intense in transatlantic colonies or in adjacent colonies? In a colony adjacent to the motherland? Of course the situation is very clear. There is a distance of 18,000-20,000 km between Portugal and Angola, Mozambique, Guinea Bisao. When there is a shortage of military equipment, it is not always possible for you to cross this distance and make up for it. This means that Portugal is a colony of Portugal, but Portugal cannot develop oppression and cruelty all over the country. It can only develop colonies in coastal areas close to the ocean. In other regions, colonial oppression and cruelty is not felt.

However, when we look at Kurdistan, for example, the north of Iraq and the south of Kurdistan are adjacent to Iraq. A plane taking off from Baghdad can bomb Kurds and hit villages in half an hour. Moreover, let’s think of the Saddam Hussein period; an important headquarters of the Iraqi army is in Mosul, that is, in Kurdistan. Oppression and persecution are much more intense in the adjacent colonies. For example, on 16 March 1988, there was a genocide in Halabja. Halabja is a climax. Starting in 1983, Saddam Hussein burned down various parts of Kurdistan and exiled people. What I am saying here is that the declaration of independence for colonies and colonial peoples by the UN General Assembly in 1960 was for overseas colonies. In other words, the declaration does not address the contiguous colonies.”

“The political landscape of the world has changed, but nothing has changed in Kurdistan”

“This is an anti-Kurdish world order established in the 1920s,” Beşikçi said, reminding that the League of Nations was established to resolve international disputes peacefully.

Explaining the League of Nations’ attitude towards Kurdistan, Beşikçi said, “Of course, we see that the League of Nations could not establish international peace. For example, it could not prevent World War II from happening. Western statesmen, who were in charge of maintaining international peace, were in contact with each other from time to time. They said let’s purge the League of Nations of its weaknesses and establish a new organization. And in 1945, the United Nations was founded. There were great changes in the political face of the world. But nothing changes in Kurdistan. The Anti-Kurdish World Order established in the 1920s continues. Parallel to this, the regional Anti-Kurdish Ordinance is developing. This is a much more serious situation for Kurds and Kurdistan.”

Ismail Beşikçi stated that this was the main development regarding Kurdistan and the Kurds after the 1920s and added: “Today, governments are using Islamic ideology very intensively in order to remove the Kurdish problem from the agenda. For example, they are rapidly implementing Qur’an courses and Imam Hatip schools. An important reason for this is to remove the Kurds and Kurdistan issue from the agenda.”

“There is no idea in Turkey”

In a chapter titled “The style of politics in Kurdistan”, writer Fuat Önen talked about the prevailing opinion in Turkey.

Stating that Yusuf Akçura published an article in 1904 in a magazine called “Turk” published in Egypt and that in this article he talked about three political views as “Ottomanism, Islamism and Turkism”, Önen said: “When you look at the title of this article, you would think that he was talking about an intellectual issue. For example, you would expect someone who says he is an Islamist to praise Islam, or you would expect someone who says he is a Turkist to say let’s organize society through this idea. But this is not Yusuf Akçura’s concern. His article is neither Ottomanism, nor Islamism, nor Turkism. His concern was to create a nation for the Ottoman Empire. He is a Tatar, he has travelled in Europe, he introduces himself as an academic, but his article is far from being an academic. Let’s create a nation for this state, but how? He asks whether it is Ottoman, Islamic or Turkish. He says the era of Ottomanism is over, the nation must be either Islamist or Turkish. He asks on these two issues; which one will our intellectuals prefer. Here I want to say that there is no intellectualism in Turkey. The dominant Turkish intellectualism is not an intellectualism. There is one goal and that is the state. Let’s keep the state alive and create a nation for this state. This idea continues from Mustafa Kemal to Tayyip Erdoğan.”

Stating that Mustafa Kemal first worked for the survival of the sultanate and kissed the hands of Kurdish sheikhs and mullahs before the establishment of the republic, but after 1924 he turned into a European, civilised, secularist, modernist statesman, Önen said: “For them, the same person can be a modernist, an Islamist and a secularist. It doesn’t matter to them whether these ideas are true or not, because they don’t have an idea. Today, when we look at the beliefs of the ruling state, we cannot see a party with an intellectual school. For example, we cannot call the AKP a liberal democrat, a conservative democrat or an Ottomanist. The CHP is called social democrat, but it has nothing to do with social democracy. Turks see themselves strong with the state. In order for this state to survive, they put forward whichever ideology, whichever idea suits their calculations.”

Fuat Önen explained that the Kurds later responded to Yusuf Akçura’s article in the Serbesti Magazine and in the book by the writer Malmusanij, “The answer is that if you want to establish an Ottoman people, the Kurds are Kurds first and foremost and this belief of theirs does not change. Our people are also Muslims, but they are Kurds first and foremost and this does not change. As for Turkism, we have been living together for 400 years, we can love them if they do not deny us, but at this point, Kurds are Kurds first and foremost and this belief does not change.”

Fuat Önen said that when it came to the Kurds in the nation-state debates, it was said “The time for the nation-state has passed”.

Stating that when the nation-state was being discussed in the 1920s, the main aim was to create a nation for the state and therefore a state nation was created, not a nation-state, Önen said: “When Turks saw that this modernist idea was dominant in Europe, they wanted to create a state nation for themselves. From 1920 to 1970, the population of the geography today called Turkey was 13 million. Of this, 5 million are immigrants who arrived in the last 50 years. They wanted to create a state for this minority through the state. For this reason, there is no Turkish idea, there is Turkish politics.”

“When they say the issue of survival, we understand that they are talking about the Kurdish people”

Önen stated that Sultan Nur saw foreigners and Kurds as filth and therefore advocated the isolation of these two tribes from their language and tribe, and that such a thing would only be possible through genocide.

“For this reason, the policy Turkey has pursued in the last 100 years is a genocidal policy,” Önen said, adding that the Laz, Assyrians and Greeks living in these lands were eliminated through periodic genocides, and the only obstacle was the Kurds.

Önen said, “When they say the issue of survival, we understand that they are talking about the existence of the Kurdish people and Kurdistan. Turkey has only fought against Kurdistan in these 100 years. In recent years they have sent troops to Syria and Libya. They sent a contingent to Korea for the US, they landed in Cyprus, but all other wars have been against Kurds. They say they have a phobia against the Kurds, but this is not a matter of phobia. Eliminating the existence of a people and a country is genocide. Whether with weapons or other means,” he said.

Fuat Önen explained that Kurds have been living in these lands for thousands of years, and that the Kurdish struggle against the state is based on protecting their own existence.

Fuat Önen stressed that what Turkey calls “strategic position” is in fact the strategic position of Kurdistan and said, “That is why they see the Kurdish issue as a matter of survival, and they see it as vital.”

Speaking about the political styles within the Kurdish community, Önen said that one section seeks a solution within the existing borders of the states. He explained that this group is divided into two, with one seeking a democratic solution and the other seeking a solution based on federalism and autonomy.

Önen stated that another political style supports independence, adding that there is a certain border in Southern Kurdistan and there was a debate on this issue in Eastern Kurdistan in the past.

Önen said, “The politics seeking solutions within the borders of the state has come to an end. It is ready for separatist politics. Our young people should learn from this. Our politics is not very complicated. It is three lines. We are one nation, we have one country and this nation will have a state in this country.”