Victimization and Forgiveness in Solving Kurdish Problem
Last Sunday witnessed Turkish and Kurdish intellectuals gathering for the first time to hammer out what many saw as historic document in solving the Kurdish problem in Turkey.
In an Abant forum held at a resort near Abant Lake in the northwestern town of Bolu, participants were eager to put their past behind them and move forward toward a promising future based on fully fledged democracy and a new constitution drawn up with the consent of the public will.
Not only Kurds, but other ethnic minorities in Turkey were dealt their fair share of frustration and disenchantment for many years by rigid state policy and oppressive practices in our recent history. People who have lived on this land for centuries have a common stake in the country's future, and every right to be heard, as they too sacrificed their lives to defend against invading forces, most recently in the War of Indepen-dence nearly 80 years ago. At the forum, Kurdish leaders displayed a willingness to leave the past in the past, which proved very difficult for some, as horror stories are still fresh in many minds.
Yet it appeared they did not fear taking the challenge head-on for the sake of the future generations whom they would like to see live in peace and harmony.
To do that they had to deal with the term "victimization phenomenon," coined by the scholars of conflict for some time now. "Militarization of the victim phenomenon is the last thing we need," said Kemal Sayar at the outset of the forum's closing session, stressing that "we ought to try to solve our issues by talking and having dialogue." He reminded the audience that in World War II, 89 percent of shots fired by soldiers were misses, as it proved very difficult to kill a person while looking into their eyes. He contended that the world now saw dehumanized wars, through the development of cluster bombs and other ferocious weapons controlled from afar, just like an Atari game.
Mümtaz'er Türköne, a prominent Turkish scholar, went as far as saying that invoking tragic past experiences increases sensitivity on the other side and sparks a defensive reaction. "It may even lead to fascism," he argued, adding that "repression applied not only to Kurds but also to Turks as well." He asserted that Turks and Kurds would not get anywhere near a solution if they dwelled on the past, as "you can find many tragic stories on either side, and this won't help diffuse tension and solve the problem."
Author and columnist Leyla Ipekçi disagreed with Türköne on the point of sharing and listening to human stories. "It may produce a counter-response, but we need to recognize justice," she stressed, contending that "stories put a human face on the issue." According to Ipekçi, justice has no identity. Human rights advocate Yilmaz Ensaraoglu joined Ipekçi in stressing the need to speak and listen to stories. He spoke of a need to listen to the stories of the past and reflect on them.
Bugün daily columnist Mehmet Metiner drew attention to balancing past and present. "Rhetoric is important," he said, but argued that it needed to be projected in a balanced way. In his opinion, not only should parties to the discussion be able to criticize repressive state tactics, but they must also reject violence by armed factions. He indicated that the democratization process was important in solving problems. Kurdish poet Bejan Matur was more sentimental on the issue, summing up her viewpoint by saying: "Kurds cry and Turks listen." She proposed a small discussion group to put the issue on a fast track. "We need to be able to listen survivors' stories," she said, stressing, however that people could communicate much better if they took the "arabesk" (agitation) out of the conversations.
Rojbin Tugan Kalkan, a Kurdish lawyer, was the most assertive about putting tragic Kurdish stories out there. "You have to listen to my stories," she said, adding: "This is only a drop in the ocean." She claimed most were unaware things happening on the ground, and even accused some of not wanting to know. Journalist and writer Osman Güzelgöz did not share Kalkan's viewpoint. He said, "We do not get stuck in the past, otherwise we can't make progress," adding that at the forum "everybody would be able to recognize propaganda element in the discussion of Kurdish issue in order to prevent inflaming already tense feelings."
Another debater, Naci Bostanci, a prominent commentator, gave his perspective on the issue as well, saying there was a need to "read recent history in the right way" and pointing out that "the conflict has been between elite and the public and was not confined to the Kurdish issue alone." Today's Zaman columnist Ihsan Dagi said the problem emanated from the very idea of nationalism. "We need to reject either Turkish or Kurdish nationalism that is primarily focused on excluding one another," he claimed. He argued "if the Kurdish movement is imitating radical Turkish nationalism, they are making the same mistake."
The governor of Bolu, where the forum was held, was pretty clear in conveying his message: "Let us reconcile our differences," he said, adding that "people want to greet their sons and daughters as grooms and brides rather than receiving them in coffins." Hüseyin Gülerce, one of the organizers of the forum, said: "Turks and Kurds feel at east in discussing issues together for the first time on an open platform carried live on national television. We need to use common sense and reason rather than our emotions."
Kurds seemed to have agreed on the same premise as their Turkish counterparts did. Altan Tan, a respected Kurdish leader, emphasized that the conflict was seeded in the region 100 years ago by major powers. He said the issue would not be solved by just focusing on Kurds. "It is the problem of democratization and a civil constitution in Turkey," he said. Levent Koker, a constitutional law expert, agreed with Tan's argument: "We need to talk about revisions to the Constitution and make changes in the definition of citizenship based on cultural rights." Cevat Öndes, a retired intelligence czar, pointed out the common cultural heritage and history in the land of Anatolia and said a "lack of full fledged democracy and of institutionalization is hampering our efforts to solve problems." A retired deputy head of the National Intelligence Organization (MIT), Öndes put forward true democracy based on common consensus as the top priority in addressing the Kurdish issue.
One of the important obstacles to dialogue and mutual understanding is unsubstantiated fear on all sides. "Them vs. us" dichotomies feed hawkish attitudes and present challenges to reconciliation. "We have a fear of Kurds in Turkey," said Engin Yildirim, a professor at Sakarya University, noting that there were many misconceptions about Kurdish culture in the society at large. "They say the Kurdish population is growing and will take over the country soon. This kind of propaganda instills fear in society."
Sedat Yurttas, a former Diyarbakir deputy, wants officials to attack psychological roots of the problem. "We need to establish psychological basis for solution to the problem" he noted. Today's Zaman columnist and author Ali Bulaç warned about stereotyping Kurds especially, in the media and on television. "They portray Kurds as tribal people who are not afraid of killing each other," he said. He pointed out that most television series focus on security concerns. "It spreads fear of Kurds and this is definitely not helping," he added.
In the overall discussion on the victimization phenomenon, psychologist Kemal Sayar said the best solution to serve both sides well was forgiveness: "Forgiveness is very important." He cautioned, however, that "this does not mean we should forget." Forgiveness will take the vengeance feeling from people's minds and help them cope with anger and frustration, and listening to human stories will help solve the problem, he contended, adding: "If not, all that has happened will degrade itself to numbers and statistics, which have no feelings." (Abdullah Bozkurt, Istanbul)
- Created on .