Osman Baydemir

Mayor of Diyarbakir Metropolitan Municipality     

Lawyer Osman Baydemir          

Turkey’s Integration to EU and Solution of Kurdish Problem

The past two days have seen an intense debate about the Turks and the Kurds, different communities with different views being brought together under the same roof from both Turkey and Europe. What brings us together is our belief in the tradition of democratic debate. Honoured President, with your permission, I would like to share an observation of mine regarding the background of the delegates of this conference. I am honoured to see many civil society representatives from the European and Kurdish political arena. Sadly, representatives from government, who would play a very important role regarding these issues, are nowhere to be seen.

I would like to put forward my criticisms of the decision not to invite these parties. If they were invited and did not attend, then this is also a serious matter. Nevertheless, please do not take my observation as a simple accusation. The actual problem which needs to be discussed is the reality that we have failed to bring all the parties to the platform. The main reason for the persistence of the Kurdish question is the absence of a necessary atmosphere for discussion between the parties involved. I hope these kinds of democratic platforms can be formed in Turkey.  We can make real progress as regards the Kurdish problem if these platforms for debate can be formed in Ankara, Diyarbakir, Istanbul and Sirnak.

With this earnest desire, I would like to start with a question of “What do the Kurds Want?” As a person who has defended human rights in the region and is an elected Kurdish politician, with regards to my experiences, I can say that Kurds want to be treated like any other human being, with social, political, cultural and economic rights. Certainly, they do not want these rights only for themselves, but for all of the members of different cultures, faiths and nationalities in Turkey.

The most important reason why the Kurdish problem continues to remain unsolved is the obstruction of talks within the democratic frame.  The Kurdish problem cannot be solved by categorising the issue as a “security issue” or “economic reactionism”, unless social, political, cultural, legal and administrative dimensions are taken into consideration. Therefore, we believe that all kinds of military methods would simply worsen the problem.

During the 80 year history of the Republic of Turkey, the Kurds have always been oppressed. As a result, the Kurds have tried to shape their future by rebelling and so violence has become a main foundation of the Kurdish problem. As Mr. Dicle stated yesterday, as the problem has not been resolved by democratic means the culture of violence has served to exacerbate the problem.  Our solution for the Kurdish issue is very clear. A democratic and comprehensive resolution project with political, social, cultural and economic dimensions is urgently needed. Within this project, dialogue is of crucial importance. Only this can prevent us from heading towards further armed conflict.

At this point, the question is what the European Union can offer the pro-Kurdish and democratic movement in Turkey. The EU is the most important partner to the process of democratisation in Turkey.

We consider the EU to be a democratic union, surrounded by different cultures, nations and values which gives effect to social participation and civilisation. The EU is a democratic and humanitarian institution founded on the principle of the rule of law which was created in response to a history of tragedy. We are aware how painful it was for the European States to transform themselves from authoritarian to democratic structures. The experience of the struggle that occurred for democracy within Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Greece sets a great example for us.

The implementation of the norms and standards of the EU within Turkey can make a huge difference not only for Kurds but also for other ethnic minorities within Turkey, and can make an enormous difference economically and most importantly for democracy.

We want the EU to continue its role in promoting democracy in Turkey and strengthen its role in order to help us to solve the Kurdish problem. The EU should even play a more active role in helping us to move the Kurdish problem from a violence based foundation to a democratic debate foundation.

The Kurdish problem is also a Turkish problem; it is Turkey’s democratisation problem. An increase in militarism, extreme nationalism, economic and political degeneracy affects not only the Kurds but all people in Turkey.

A huge amount of economic and humanitarian aid is spent on the military; a rough estimate would place the figure at about 100 billion dollars over the last 20 years. Education, health and un-employment are all ignored, not only in the east but all over the country. Poverty, lack of education, housing and health problems are prevalent in urban areas.

From this perspective, we can understand that Turkey’s problems are intrinsically linked. Therefore, finding a solution for the Kurdish problem is also about finding a solution for all the people of Turkey. Accusations of ethnic nationalism (Kurdish Nationalism) and Kurdish politics (politics only for Kurds) are thus inappropriate, our fight is not ethnic it is democratic. A democratic solution of the Kurdish problem would speed up the process of democratisation and economic growth in Turkey.

Respected President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, during his trip to Diyarbakir in August 2005 accepted that there was a “Kurdish problem” in Turkey and said that the State made mistakes in the past and that this is the time to face those mistakes and deal with them. The Kurds want to perceive this statement as a symbol of a change in relations between the state and its citizens. Moreover, we expect the state to make amends for the damage caused during the democratisation process. It is also a very important step forward for a Prime Minister to say that the Kurdish problem can only be resolved with democratic means. However, such words can only be meaningful if concrete and practical steps are taken, particularly when we recall that, respected Suleyman Demirel in December 1991 stated that he recognised the Kurdish reality.

Furthermore, honoured Turgut Ozal, prior to his death, stated that he was ready to discuss the idea of a federation. Moreover, Tansu Ciller, during one of her trips to abroad, stated that she preferred the Basque model in Spain. However, after returning to Turkey she was subjected to an extensive military pressure and as a result she retracted her remarks. The speech of honoured Erdogan that has given such hope to the people of region must not share the same destiny as the other statements.

Unfortunately, when we see the contents of the new anti-terror laws, which are due to be implemented, we can see that the State of Emergency laws and Martial law are about to be brought back. The democratic reforms that have been made are now at risk. There is a paradoxical situation which can easily be seen when the contents of honoured Prime Minister’s speech proclaiming “more democracy” in Diyarbakir and the new anti-terror laws are compared. There is a serious contradiction between the promises of democracy given in Diyarbakir, and the new legislative steps being taken by the State. It must be acknowledged that Turkey will be powerless to maintain its own security, economically and politically, if it turns away from democracy.

In yesterday’s meeting, honoured Joost Lagendijk told all the parties who approach the Kurdish problem with violence and military methods to instead use democratic means not violent strategies. I sincerely agree with honoured Mr Lagendijk. We are against violent strategies too. However, we have said before that being against violence is not enough. Parties who are against violence can only move the debate forward if they discuss social, political, historical, cultural, economic and ideological factors and demonstrate a willingness to improve the situation.

The main question is how can we do it? How can we make sure that both sides put their guns down? State officials want the Kurdish problem to remain out of politics. If that stays the same, how can we solve the Kurdish problem if the solution is not seen as political and is absent from democratic political discourse? If the Kurdish problem cannot be regarded as political, how can it be regarded then? The answer to this question is not hard for those who know the Kurdish movement within the history of Republic of Turkey. Our fear is that if the quest for a democratic resolution to the Kurdish question is abandoned, then violence will persist.

Since the conference last year in Brussels, progress, both negative and positive, has been made in Turkey regarding the Kurdish question. The atmosphere is, though, still very tense at the moment, people in the region are caught between the hope of a peaceful future and a return to the violence of the past. The present indefiniteness of the situation does not help for the future. However, we believe that it is still not too late for a democratic solution to the Kurdish problem. Turkey’s accession to the EU has created hope for a democratic and peaceful future in Turkey. All communities in Turkey who defend democracy want accession talks to start and hopes and expectations regarding the talks are high. Surely, there will be huge amount of disappointment, unhappiness and social-political crisis if accession talks with Turkey do not start.  This will only make the current problems even worse. With this in mind, we hope that the accession talks with Turkey will start on 3rd October. I salute you all with respect.       

Brussels, 20th September 2005