Conflict Resolution Approaches - General Discussion/Questions and Answer Period
WKI Conflict Resolution Forum
July 29, 1998

ALAN MAKOVSKY: I would like to introduce the idea of the fears of the Turks into this discussion. Because I think without the Kurds taking those fears into account, I don't see much hope, at least in the short term, for a solution to the problem.

We know the history of this problem. From the establishment of the state of Turkey in 1923 until 1991, the word Kurd was never legally mentioned in Turkey. There is no one old enough to be in this room who, in their educational system growing up in Turkey, could have even heard the word Kurd or even heard it in any sort of official discourse in Turkey.

In 1991, Turkey crossed an important rubicon when Ozal essentially introduced this word into political discourse. And I would say it was formalized in many ways later that year when then Prime Minister Demeral said, "We recognize the Kurdish reality."

Since that time, the nature -- the dynamic of the discussion of this issue has been very different in Turkey. And if we compare the Turkey of today where the issue is discussed, however much there are restrictions on it; where there are at least underground -- unlicensed but occasionally unlicensed but tolerated electronic media in Kurdish; where everyone can say the word Kurd or say I am a Kurd; where the press uses the term Kurdish origin, Turkish citizen, it's a very different Turkey.

It's a process. And when you consider that it's coming in a country where the word Kurd was not part of the vocabulary until earlier this decade, that is a step forward.

I think the concept of education which was mentioned by Mr. Temourian and Ms. Wein is a very important one. I think there are a lot of reasons to think that -- to be optimistic about the long term evolution, as painful as the current and probably short term future of this problem is.

There are demographic trends that are going to cause Turkish society to have to deal with this issue in a way that it hasn't before, both the size of the Kurdish population and the migratory trends in the country, the educational issue, Turkey's desire to be linked with the West.

In that context, I think it's very important not to oppose Turkey's links with the West, but to encourage them in every way possible because those links will lead to the sorts of reforms in Turkey that everyone in this room, I think, would like to see.

The Kurds need to take some of these long term Turkish concerns into account. Turks have to be convinced that Kurds are not bent on violence and not bent on separatism.

And I think those are the two key issues. The idea that Dogu Ergil inserted yesterday about finding the political space between the current allowances of the Turkish state and the PKK, to find that political space, to work with other Turks and to separate Kurds from violence and separatism, I think that's very important.

MAHMOOD OSMAN: First, we should support the legal Kurdish struggle for rights within the states in which they live. Of course, everybody knows the Kurds have the right to self determination. This should be supported in this conference. We should arrange to support that struggle. And, at the same time, condemn all the wars against the Kurds, whether it is in Iraq, it's in Turkey, it's in Iran, it's in any place. A second thing would be to support resolutions, ideas, and decisions on the Kurdish issue made in Europe. As Kendal Nezan said, there are many resolutions from just the last few months. The Socialist International, European Parliament, other conferences in Lausanne, in Bonne, in Paris, in other places, have prepared resolutions on the Kurdish issue. There is general agreement that if this issue is not solved, there will be no security, no peace in the Middle East.

We should support these resolutions. They already exist and we should echo them here. These resolutions are now put into practice. For example, the Socialist International decided to send a delegation to Kurdistan.

A third thing is that we should ask for a regional or international conference on the Kurdish issue. There have been many such conferences for the Palestinians and on other issues in countries in which Kurds live. Kurdish political representatives and representatives from the United States should take part in such a Forum, which would ideally be convened under the auspices of United Nations -- after all, this issue is of great global significance as it concerns Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Soviet Union, etc.

My final point is that we should encourage the Kurds to seek dialogue in all the countries they live in, to seek dialogue over armed struggle. But, at the same time, ask the government of the country to respond to that dialogue and try to have a solution.

And the final thing, we should appeal to both parties, KDP and PUK, to ask them to end their differences and find a solution to their quarrels for the sake of all Iraqi Kurdistan. At the same time we should appeal to them to resolve their problems with PKK and other groups in the region through peaceful means.

MEHDI ZANA: When one undertakes a journey, one can separate oneself from one's feelings. If you want a solution to the Kurdish question, the Kurdistan of Iraq has taken an irreversible step forward, has become Kurdistan.

And when we want to recognize the players in the arena, we need to gauge them correctly. Let's separate our feelings and our hopes from the real situation. And the pain and the suffering that the Kurds suffer or they go through needs to be assessed correctly.

We don't need to impose our feelings in terms of I like this group or I like this leader. We need to go to the source of the problem. Only then we can offer a solution. Our feelings, our hopes, our imposition of our solution or our way of imposing a solution to the problem will not bring a solution.

DOGU ERGIL: There must be a network which must convince the states in the Middle East that without a solution for the Kurdish problem, there can be no security and stability. But, at the same time, the Kurds must realize that their struggle should not only employ one crude method, armed struggle, which legitimizes oppression against them. This cycle brings more instability and breaks down the solidarity in those societies.

Kurds must decide on one thing. Whether to pursue the utopia of a united Kurdistan while disrupting all the countries in the Middle East where they live -- a goal that will bring disaster to all communities, or would to contribute to democracy, stability and upgrading the human conditions of those countries.

Looking at the European example, we see that the outer borders of Europe getting tougher. But the inside borders are getting to be like a membrane.

And if there is really democracy and prosperity in the Middle East, there will be no Kurdish question except at the cultural level where Kurdish identity will be accepted and where there will be freedom of expression, whatever the Kurds want to define what Kurdish is for them.

So, you know, there's a choice of balance between ends and means. Do they want armed struggle, which has brought misery, deportation and so forth? I'm ashamed to say this coming from a country where these methods have been employed because violence has bred violence.

So peace and stability can come to Middle East if the Kurdish question can be solved. But Kurds must also contribute to that stability and security by peaceful means.

MOHAMMED AHMED: There is a burning issue as far as I am concerned. I mean, everyone has addressed the various aspect of the political problem of the Kurdish issue which is endless. But the conflict has resulted in a great deal of misery in the Kurdish region.

And I'm afraid no one has tackled this problem, and the problem is 200,000 refugees or stateless people in Syria, for example, and numerous homeless Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan, in Iranian Kurdistan, in Turkish Kurdistan.

This issue has not been addressed here, and I believe that this conference should address it in terms of the UN. Why not establish observer status for the Kurds? Or a special envoy, such as the UN created for the Palestinians? The Kurds are dispirited. Their children have been deprived of education, of health services and so on and so forth.

Who is taking care of these things? I would like the UN to send some representatives to some of these camps to assess the situation of the Kurds and to address some of their problems.

OMAR SHEIKHMOUS: Mr. Chairman, most of our discussions yesterday and today have broached certain conclusions. One is encouragement and help to develop a democratic process and respect for human rights in most of these areas and countries.

Secondly, that the lesson from Europe and Latin America is development of regional structures -- cultural, political, economic, regional structures. If such regional structures are encouraged in the Middle East, that would include not only the Arab countries but Iran and Turkey as well -- might be extremely useful.

It was extremely unfortunate that the labor party lost the election in Israel because there was already a ground for such a development, especially as far as an economic market -- common market is concerned for the Middle East.

Finally, I appreciate very much the discussion about multi-track and two track diplomacy on both levels, official and grass root levels and their effects. But, at the same time, I would agree with Professor Ergil that we have a lot of work to do not only at the level of these governments, but at the level of the Kurdish organizations as well.

There are a lot of shortcomings. There are very serious violations of human rights in the ranks. And the continuation of arms struggle and the method of arms struggle is as destructive for their future as it is for the population of these states.

BAKHTIAR AMIN: I would like to address three issues. These are my recommendations for the conference to be addressed to other bodies.

The issue of the citizenship for Kurds in Syria and Lebanon. The UNHCR is authorized to work out an arrangement with concerned states regarding citizenship issues. This conference should attempt to engage the UNHCR in this regard.

We also did not have a chance to discuss the situation of the Kurds in the former Soviet Union. Their situation is very difficult. We all know about how much they paid from Stalin's deportation and then how they got stuck in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and what happened to their villages and towns in Lachin corridor.

These people have not benefited from cultural autonomy. They are deterritorialized. Their situation is different from republic to republic. We don't have time to go into this question, but this question should be addressed and the conference should ask the concerned governments to engage in a dialogue with the Kurdish communities in these countries.

The OSCE can play an important role in this regard. The Working Group on Minorities within the United Nations can play a role in this regard, as well as other European institutions. And United States also can play a role, of course, through the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission), Congressional Human Rights Caucus and other Congressional and governmental commissions.

I would also ask that the conference recommend that the United States Government and the VOA, which has a Kurdish radio broadcasting service, also develop TV broadcasting in Kurdish language.

JACK GREENBLATT: We talked about many different factors that could help a solution. There are certain pressure points that can be more important than anything else. Any resolution to many of these problems requires the ending of this terrible war between the KDP and the PKK with a movement toward constructive solutions.

So I would recommend that an official U.S. delegation go meet with Mahsoud Barzani and Abdullah Ocalan with specific, concrete, no BS solutions on moving toward ending the arms struggle, moving toward democratization and resolving the Kurdish problem in both Iraq and in Turkey.

PARY KARADAGHI: I'm with Kurdish Human Rights Watch. I would like to propose that we work together, as NGOs, Kurdish political movements, analysts and journalists to adapt new resolutions to move in a new direction on the Kurdish issue, especially through the Diaspera movement both in Europe and United States. We need to align and join our forces to explore the possibilities of democratization and encouraging open society in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

I don't think this will happen quickly. It takes a long time. These are things that these governments are not used to. They are used to human rights abuses, persecution and political oppression.

I don't think we can always say the Kurds should do this, the Kurds should do that. It's also a question of what the governments can do in order to improve their human rights records and move into dialogue with the Kurdish movement.

Calling Kurdish opposition movements terrorists is a convenient but misleading label. They call somebody a terrorist so they don't have to deal with them anymore. But that's not the solution.

And I would like us as Kurdish organizations and Kurdish movements to move toward working together and developing more of a partnership in working towards these goals. And again, I would like to see more of women participation. There are wonderful Kurdish women who are involved in the Kurdish struggle.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I'd like to state that the source of the conflict is the denial of the Kurdish basic rights. I think both Mr. Temourian and Mr. Kendal hit on the points which are very important for the Kurdish people.

Self determination is a right of the Kurdish people, and this is what we have to recognize first. After that we talk about the conflict because once self-determination is acknowledged, then there is room for dialogue.

We are definitely in favor of peaceful solutions. Nobody likes to fight. We have suffered a lot for the past 70 years of fighting. We don't want to fight. We are tired of it. But, as my Turkish friends said, they like the peaceful dialogue.

The war in Turkey didn't start in 1985. It began from 1925 to 1937 when the Kurds were fighting with the government. There was a lull after the Kurds get tired, and little happened from 1937.

They signed the Iraqi-Turkish-Iranian agreement to quell the Kurds. But this is historical. The Kurds resort again to violence because they rejected the treaty.

Only now has Turkey accepted the Kurdish identity We are all for peaceful purposes. But to engage in peaceful dialogue, you need somebody who lets you talk peace with them. If they don't sit with you, if they don't consider your issues, you cannot ask for peaceful dialogue. Once these are denied, then you resort to the arms, even if we oppose violence, because and we have suffered.

We have lost 3,000 villages in Iraq. We have lost 3,500 villages in Turkey. We have seen the deportation of three million and a half people in Turkey. Now we have unprecedented immigration from Iraq.

For all these reasons, I think we are all for dialogue. And the basic principle is to accept the self determination of the Kurdish people and leave to the people in the countries to choose the form of association they like to have with the local government.

We are not against Iranians. If the people of Iranian Kurdistan accept to live within Iranain borders, it's fine, it's welcome, it's their decision. But first we have to accept the principle of self determination. Let the people have the right to decide how they want to live with the existing communities.

DAVID PHILLIPS: Regarding formulations for self determination, I'd like to refer you to Hurst Hannum's excellent publication, Self Determination and International Law, which describes the manifestation of self determination to include independence, as well as federal and autonomous structures.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: In my opinion, there is different way to find a better solution for all Kurdish nation, not just with one part without other part. All of us knows that Turkey is a critical ally for the United States.

Most Kurds live in Turkey. So if Turkey finds a solution for its Kurds with the help of United States, with some pressure from United States, that solution could provide a basis for a solution for Kurds in other countries.

The United States wants to see a strong Turkey. But Turkey will never be strong without solving the Kurdish problem and those facing other minorities. When they solve those problems, then they can see a strong Turkey.

There will be never be peace in Middle East without solving the Kurdish issue. Forty million people without any rights? It's impossible for such a problem to remain without causing serious regional problems.

In my opinion, United States wants to see this type of problem persist in the region so they can play Kurds off against various governments. Anytime they want to do something, they push some Kurds in some parts to make a problem for that country.

That's why they haven't found a solution. If they want, they can get rid of Saddam Hussein; but they never get rid of Saddam Hussein until they find better Saddam for themselves, not for the area -- for themselves.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I wouldn't like to repeat all that's been said, and it is interesting to hear many peaceful methods for resolving the conflicts in the area. And as far as Iraqi Kurdistan, I would like really to just enumerate on one point that Ms. Porter pointed out, that the crux of the matter is really a united voice of the Kurds.

I suggest some modification to the proposal to send a delegation from this conference to assist in national Kurdish reconciliation between the PUK and KDP and the PKK, all the parties together which are very important for a peaceful settlement in Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey as well.

Another important point, raised by Dogu Ergil, is that economic prosperity is important for settlement of the conflict in the area. I beleive we should make a resolution to modify and improve UN resolution 986, the oil-for-food program, which is important for Iraqi Kurdistan, but which is failing to reach the poeple there.

SAIF BADRAKHAN: There are two sides to the Turkish-Kurdish conflict: the PKK and the Turkish government and Army. We therefore have to address both the Turkish and the PKK concerns at the same time. The Council of Europe has discussed peace between both sides. They received a letter from Ocalan and discussed what Ojalan wanted. They also received a letter from the Turkish government and discussed what the Turkish government wanted.

That's how they started to address both sides. And I want to ask for a resolution for this conference to send a letter to the Secretary of State Albright to ask that she withdraw the PKK from the terrorist list because this will advance the peace between Turkey and the PKK.