ARMENIANS AND KURDS

"I refer to those awful massacres. They are the greatest stain that has ever disgraced our nation and race. They were entirely the work of Talat and Enver. I heard some days before they began that they were intended. I went to Istanbul and insisted on seeing Enver. I asked him if it was true that they intended to recommence the massacres which had been our shame and disgrace under Abdul Hamid. The only reply I could get from him was: 'It is decided. It is the program.'” ~ Prince Abdul Mecid, Heir-Apparent to the Ottoman Throne.

KurdishMedia has posted their interview with Andrew Goldberg, the creator of The Armenian Genocide, which aired last month on the American Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). I would like to point out something in the interview that, although not news to me, may be news to others:

Did you face any difficulties doing firsthand research in Turkey? What, if any precautions did you staff take?

We generally traveled undercover. Still, our “tourist” camera crews were stopped several times by the army and police. It was very frustrating. We also hired a Kurdish cameraman and producer to travel to eastern Turkey and Kurdistan. He went there *very* undercover and asked that we not disclose his name for fear of Turkish reprisal.

We know that you conducted a few Kurdish-language interviews for this film. Was it easy traveling through Kurdistan and finding people able and willing to speak on the Armenian Genocide? Was there anything unique about the Kurdish perspective on these events?

See above question for the first half of this and yes, it is Kurdistan and must be called that! The Kurdish voice is tremendously important because they tell the truth about the events and are not wrapped up the nationalism of many Turkish people – a nationalism that prevents them from telling the truth. Kurds do not suffer from denial, which I believe is a psychological issue for many Turks, and not just an issue of what people “say in public.”

Did you catch that? The Kurdish voice tells the truth about the genocide, Kurds don't suffer from denial, Kurds asking for anonymity in case of Turkish reprisal? Goldberg's crew spoke to ordinary Kurds in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan but the issue has been a public one as well. At Armeniapedia there is a list of those countries that recognize the genocide. If you check about halfway down the list, you will see a link to Kurdistan's recognition. There is a statement from the Kurdistan Parliament-in-Exile, the forerunner to the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK), a letter from Abdullah Ocalan to the President of Armenia with his remarks about the genocide and a short piece of news about Ozgur Gundem's apology for Kurdish "silence and complicity in the Armenian Genocide."

A great thing about that page is that the Armenians created it themselves. They felt it was important enough to post recognitions of their Genocide from a place called Kurdistan.

Kurds both in Kurdistan and in Diaspora have no trouble in the denial department. Why? Because it makes no sense to engage in denial. It makes no sense to resurrect the dubious enmity between Armenians and Kurds that the Ottomans instigated. However, it does make sense to imagine a free, open, normalized, peaceful border between Armenia and Kurdistan which would permit the flow of travel and commerce, facilitate Armenian-Kurdish cooperation to solve similar social problems, and permit Armenians to travel back and forth between Armenia and Armenian villages in South Kurdistan.

Besides, Kurdish identity is more than strong enough to admit Kurdish complicity in the genocide, and more than noble enough to apologize for it, with a firm resolution never to allow such a thing to happen again. I cannot imagine a Kurd uttering such a whiny, self-serving, piss-poor excuse as that which came from Turkey's president, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, last year:

Turkish president Ahmet Necdet Sezer said the accusations are baseless and "upset and hurt the feelings of the Turkish nation." It is wrong, he added, for our European friends to press Turkey on this issue."

Nor can I imagine Kurds doing something so stupid as the renaming of animals in an effort to deny the existence of other peoples.

In the last week there has been a panic in the Turkish media about a proposed French law that would make denial of the Armenian Genocide illegal, and now, in a political tit-for-tat, an ANAVATAN deputy has proposed a bill in the TMMB calling for prison terms of up to three years for anyone who claims Turkey genocided Armenians. Even the Turkish government's puppet state, Azerbaijan, has rushed to helpless Turkey's defense against all the insensitive people worlwide who insist upon "hurt[ing] the feelings of the Turkish nation" in this matter. Meanwhile, with the Turkish lira doing so fabulously well against the US dollar, Erdogan threatens trade sanctions against France, while Islamist ragsheet, Zaman, reports that French companies are conveying the proper messages to their government. Since France has never been mistaken for a country that would actually stand and fight, there will be no shock here if they end up caving to the latest Turkish temper tantrum.

On the other hand, recently there have been Turkish scholars who have tried to bring about a public discussion of the Armenian Genocide. Last September, these brave Turks persevered in their efforts to hold a conference on the Genocide in spite of a court ban against it. Taner Akcam, Halil Berktay, Elif Shafak, Fatma Muge Gocek are Turks who have the courage to speak the truth, and there are Turk human rights activists who also speak the truth and these people do so under the gun, literally putting their lives in harm's way for truth.

As for the controversy surrounding the airing of the discussion panel after The Armenian Genocide (and by extension, the whole question of the usefulness of denial laws), I have not quite made up my mind but I think I'm leaning toward allowing the deniers to speak for this reason: If the evidence of the deniers amounts to a scholarly house of cards, it doesn't take much to destroy their arguments. Although Peter Balakian opposed a discussion panel, he felt that his boycott of it "would have jeopardized the broadcast of the documentary."

In the opinion of an Armenian friend, both Balakian and Akcam demolished the weak arguments of the deniers, McCarthy and Turan, during The Armenian Genocide's discussion panel and this is the reason why I would permit the deniers to go on. The refutation of the deniers' arguments only strengthens the Armenian position.

But that's something the Armenian community has to decide for itself.

A perusal of Justin McCarthy's works show that he is enamoured with the Ottoman Turks. Take a look at his Who Are the Turks? workbook for American teachers to get an idea of what lessons he wants young Americans to take home with them. He also penned a manual about the Armenian Genocide published by the Committee on Education, Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA). The ATAA is a lobby group whose purpose is to propagandize Americans "in government, the media and the public at large about Turkey and issues that concern us as Turkish-Americans." That's from their About page on their website. You'll have to google it yourself, though, because I'm not making a link to it.

As Andrew Golberg remarks in the KM interview:

Seeing PBS get so incredibly assaulted by the whole world – justified or not -- was very upsetting to watch. Seeing congressmen try to stop PBS from showing either the film or the panel, regardless of the value of either, reminded me of Turkey where government controls the media.

That's exactly why the ATAA and ATC (American Turkish Council) exist--to manipulate everything in order to silence the truth, and they like to keep congressmen in their pockets. Just ask Dennis Hastert or Brent Scowcroft. Hastert has also been involved with the Turkish-US Business Council (Türk-Amerikan Iş Konseyi--TAIK), which, in turn, is heavily involved with the ATC. Scowcroft is the head of the ATC.

Were the acts perpetrated against the Armenian people from 1915 to 1917 (not to mention the massacres of Armenians from 1894 to 1897 under Abdul Hamid II), acts of genocide? According to Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the legal definition of genocide includes "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

If it sounds like genocide, looks like genocide and smells like genocide, then it's genocide.


WARNING: I just came across an entry on Kurds on the Daily Kos. It is totally LAME. Take a look and see how many inaccuracies and stupid remarks you can find. What I found hilarious was the implication that Kurds suddenly reproduced 17-20 million more Kurds and took over Turkish-occupied Kurdistan in the time frame 2002-2006. Hey, baggy pants are supposed to increase fertility, but this is ridiculous!

OOPS! That's what happens when you think only South Kurdistan is Kurdistan.

The other hilarious thing is the question about whether or not PKK operations are being done with the permission of the KRG.

Man. . . I am laughing so hard. . .

REBELS

"The torture made me stronger and more stubborn. It made me more responsible for people and society and gave me ambition to do something." ~ Abdulkadir Aydin, Kurd.

You can listen to a radio interview (approximately 45 minutes) with reporter Aaron Glantz about the general situation in South Kurdistan, and Iraq, here, an interview brought to you by the Lunatic Fringe. It begins with a short discussion of the build-up of Turkish troops in North Kurdistan and pays superficial lip service to Turkish treatment of Kurds since 1984, and attribute the entire Kurdish struggle against Turkish occupation to a struggle for language. All mentions of Kurdish independence, or autonomy, are reduced to "separatism," no matter which portion of divided Kurdistan is under discussion.

All of this must be the result of the fact that references are made throughout the interview to media reports from other Lunatic Fringers.

There is obvious bias for Arab feelings as regards the occupation of Kurdistan by Iraq, with no concern expressed whatsoever for the Kurdish families who were arabized out of Kerkuk, nor is there concern for the fact that every Baghdad government that has ever existed has always insisted upon the Arab identity of Iraq--which relegates the Kurdish people to the status of second-class citizens. The implication is made that, while Kurds are the only ones concerned with the oil of Kerkuk, oil that would be used to fuel an independent Kurdistan, the noble Arabs are more concerned with dignity in their daily lives. The idea of Kurdish dignity through self-determination and independence, the question of Kurdish honor, are ideas that never occur to the Lunatic Fringe. Instead, the Kurdish people are depicted as self-serving opportunists.

Great sympathy is expressed for the Iraqi Arabs, who are held in prison as security detainees, without charges, without trial, without legal representation, simply for being against the American presence, and we are told that 9 out of 10 of them are innocent. After spending months in this kind of situation, the same sympathy is extended to those who resist against the US. All of this should sound familiar to Kurds because this is exactly what happens to Kurds under Turkish occupation, but we will wait in vain if we wait for the Lunatic Fringe to denounce the Turkish state for the same abuses or if we wait for the Lunatic Fringe to support the cause of Kurds who engage in armed resistance against oppressor states.

The Kurds under Iranian occupation are wrongly characterized as both "good Iranians" and as victims of the Kurdish struggle against Teheran. From the suggestion that Turkish economic strangulation would be an excellent means of controlling Kurds under Iraqi occupation, to the expression of support for Iranian bombing of PJAK (referred to as KDPI in the interview), to the denial of Kerkuk as Dilê Kurdistan, it is clear that the Lunatic Fringe clearly supports the continued, severe oppression of the Kurdish people. In other words, the Lunatic Fringe supports the status quo, which is the maintainence of states formed by colonial powers, and, amazingly enough, this is exactly the same position as that of the US government.

Something else in the news, that no one is going to be too concerned about is the Turkish bombing of a Christian village near Amedî.

Once again there is another great post at OneWorld Multimedia, about the tourism efforts of Dogubayazit, including a link to a tourism website for the city. Dogubayazit made its way into the world media in January, during the bird flu outbreak in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, especially when the mayor, Mukaddes Kubilay, accused the Turkish government of inaction during the crisis. Kubilay is a Kurdish woman, a DTP politician, who has had to put up with the harassment of the Turkish military, even in the course of carrying out her duties as mayor. Please visit OneWorld Multimedia and have a read.

TDN reported on Friday that a new Security Affairs Department will be established in the Turkish Prime Ministry. The catch to all this is that the Prime Ministry can make no decisions from this Security Affairs Department, but guess who will make the decisions? You guessed it--the pashas will be the decision makers, while the Prime Ministry will simply provide the office boys:

The department will conduct studies on antiterrorism and recommend strategies but will not make executive decisions, said Gül at a parliamentary commission meeting on Thursday. There is no need to be concerned. The Office of the Chief of General Staff, the police department, the Gendarmerie Command and relevant ministries will make the decisions, and this department will act as a secretariat.

Naturally, this is one of the means by which the Turkish government will "strengthen democracy and broaden rights and freedoms." I know I believe them, especially after reading the analysis of the proposed anti-terror law at Bianet. With the debate growing over the new anti-terror law, is the establishment of this department the way around a possible parliamentary failure of passage of the law? This seems to lend credence to a supposition made by one of the analysts at the European Policy Centre in Brussels, and written up at Bloomberg:

"The EU must be looking rather negatively at Turkey right now, because the government had told them it is widening rights for Kurds and tackling the military, but now all we seem to be seeing is violence and bloodshed,'' said Amanda Akcakoca, a policy analyst at the European Policy Centre in Brussels.

[ . . . ]

Turkey began EU membership talks in October, hoping to attract investment by foreign companies, boost incomes and create jobs for a working-age population that's growing by half a million each year. The country won't be able to join before 2014 at the earliest, the EU says.

Plans by the Turkish government for tougher anti-terrorism laws to tackle the PKK, now before parliament, have been criticized by the EU, which says the measure threatens to setback democratic reforms in the Kurdish region.

There's nothing like violence and bloodshed to screw up your entire economy, and any economic prospects you thought you had lined up.

This is one of the reasons why the Turkish lira has fallen to a 17-month low against the US dollar. Neither the Turkish political nor military leadership has ever shown the ability to think outside the box when it comes to Kurds, something that Turkey's resumption of the dirty war proves. Apparently, the Turkish government has not learned the lesson that the more heavily it engages in repression, the stronger Kurdish identity becomes.

After all, a Kurd will always be a rebel.

ODDS AND ENDS

In contrast to yesterday's criticism from the cocktail crowd, I'd like to point your attention to a critical article that has, in my opinion, legitimacy. You will find it on KurdistanObserver, brought to you by The Boston Globe.

The article gives the reader a fairly accurate historical background to the Kurdish situation in South Kurdistan, an accurate rendition of what younger Kurds think, and finishes with the accurate assessment that it is not too late for democratic means to be able to correct the problems of the South.

As an example, let's take the recent case of Kemal Seid Qadir. It is my opinion that Kak Masud would have come off as a huge hero if he had pardoned the guy right off the bat, because Qadir wrote some things that were not too appropriate. Kak Masud could have used that, could have allowed a public discussion about what is appropriate criticism of the parties and their various personalities and what is not. Given the general conservatism of Kurdish culture, most Kurds would not have approved of the way in which Qadir worded his criticisms anyway. Then Kak Masud could have let the guy off the hook, looking like the nobody that he was before the whole brouhaha got out of control. Or, if Kak Masud had pardoned at the first inquiry of international human rights organizations, he would have earned a lot of brownie points from them, too.

Masud Barzanî did the right thing in the end, but with a little political sophistication, he would have scored.

A bigger problem may be the PUK, especially with its repressive measures against demonstrations recently, something that comes across as a bit shocking given all of PUK's advertizing that bills it as more "progressive" than the conservative KDP. On the other hand, acts of PUK repression could be inspired by the rumors of a three-way power struggle within the organization. From that perspective, one could argue that the PUK views acts of legitimate demonstration as threats because of its own internal weakness. In my mind this neither justifies nor excuses the violence against demonstrators and journalists that the PUK has resorted to, but it may help to explain what is going on, and this is in addition to whatever power struggles it still feels it has with the KDP.

Criticism is a necessary part of the democratic process but Kurds cannot allow others to use criticism to divide them, especially when the outside criticism is nothing more than obvious, ham-handed propaganda designed to further some outside political interest. The result of this has always been the spilling of more Kurdish blood and I would hope that Kurdish nationalism, or patriotism, if you prefer, would have arrived at the point of recognizing this fact and would be able to denounce it vehemently for what it is. The people who write such screed do not deserve to be handled with kid gloves, either.

On another subject, I'd like to point out the article on the continued detention of two DIHA journalists, Evrim Dengiz and Nesrin Yazar. I first noticed the story on KurdishInfo in mid-February, and they carried a follow-up a few days later.

(By the way, Eren Keskin is mentioned in that follow-up at KurdishInfo, and DozaMe recently posted some info on her.)

Bianet caught up with the story a few weeks later, when a judge made a "confidentiality decision" on their files. What this means is that their lawyers cannot see any of the police reports or other documents that the state claims as evidence against them. How, then, are the lawyers expected to defend their clients? I realize that's probably a stupid question, given that Turkey is a fascist state and not a democracy as everyone claims. Unfortunately, Evrim Dengiz and Nesrin Yazar will not get the same fawning attention of Western intellectuals like Orhan Pamuk did, because they are not rich Turks from Istanbul; they are only reporters for the pro-Kurdish news agency DIHA.

It's interesting that these women were framed weeks before the serhildan, but already we can see that the new anti-terror law is being applied to them, at least in spirit at this moment. A couple of weeks ago the Izmir Bar Association protested the new anti-terror law because the proposed law "Allows the lawyer to be banned from examining the contents of the file against the defendant or taking copies of documents," among other things, and that is exactly what has happened to Dengiz and Yazar. Of course, this is already standard practice within the Turkish legal system, as the Izmir Bar Association spokeswoman noted:

Erkem did add that at current and despite the law, they were not able to get file or document photocopies in cases related to suspects held at the Counter-Terrorism branch offices of the police. She said the police tell lawyers to ask for copies from the prosecutor's office while many lawyers did not do this to prevent unwarranted tension in the case. "Now with the law they are trying to legalize this conduct," she said.

What exactly is the purpose of this practice, or any other practices of the Turkish legal system for that matter? It serves to protect the state from the citizens, and this idea of protecting the state comes directly from the Turkish constitution, a document which was written by pashas, and which permits individual freedoms to be revoked by administrative acts of the state. It should be no surprise, then, that the Turkish Penal Code and any anti-terror laws have been created in order to safeguard the state over individuals or groups of individuals within the state. For more on the problems inherent in the Turkish constitution, check out the Cannibal Democracies article which was first published in the Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law.

One last item. . . I came across the account of a couple of travelers through North Kurdistan and I felt that the article was a pretty good one for Westerners who are just bicycling around the Middle East. You can find the article, "Shepherds and Soldiers," here. They even managed to stumble across some Village Guards (the author calls them "soldiers") and had tea with them in one of their little stone guardhouses--a place where I would not be caught dead.

There are lots of pictures there, too. I really liked the photo of the big rain clouds on the road between Riha and Amed because it's such a typical springtime scene. There is one of the walls of Amed, which are as magnificent as ever, plus a couple of the Dicle, on the road to Hasankeyf and at the town itself. Hasankeyf has got to be one of my favorite places. The pair of travelers went all the way to Wan, and they have provided photos from there too.

Ax, Kurdistan, evîna min!

KURDS AND COCKTAIL JOURNALISM

"If you were to ask me if I'd ever had the bad luck to miss my daily cocktail, I'd have to say that I doubt it; where certain things are concerned, I plan ahead." ~ Luis Bunuel.

Sometimes a headline can tell you everything you need to know about an article without having to wade through the bilge, or in this case, the agitprop, that follows, usually written by someone called "journalist," who knows absolutely nothing about the subject upon which he or she chooses to educate the rest of us.

The article I refer to is from an unknown little news site called The Brooklyn Rail, and it's being carried on KurdishMedia, although I really don't know why this trash is being carried on KM without a rebuttal or without a posting of the fact that the trash in question appears to have been written by one of those on the Lunatic Fringe. This Lunatic Fringer goes by the name of Ryan Grim.

As the story appears, old Ryan got curious because the American media rarely reports anything about Kurdistan. They never report on Turkey's little Kurdish "problem," the one Turkey has had for 80-odd years. Nor do they report on Iran's little Kurdish "problem," the one that not even so-called Iranian progressives will talk about because, if they ever do get up the gumption to overthrow and slaughter the mullahs, they intend to treat Kurds no better than the mullahs do . . . or the Shah did, for that matter. Nor does the American media report about the Kurds of Syria, still suffering under Saddam's ideological brothers in Damascus.

South Kurdistan, the part occupied by Iraq, makes it into the American media for two purposes. The first is to support the Bush administration's decision to go to war. The second is to criticize the Bush administration's decision to go to war. It's never really about Kurds and it's never really about questions of justice or injustice; it's really only about America.

Ryan's little piece is no different. Check out the title: Bush's Hopes in the Hands of Gangsters--A dispatch from Kurdistan. In a little flash of deja vu, from another Lunatic Fringer--Justin Raimundo--America is told that Kurds are gangsters. Not only are Kurds gangsters, but they are the gangsters that will make all of Dubya's hopes and dreams come true. That's hilarious because I can recall the fit that Michael Rubin had late last summer, in which he made a 180-degree turn and began criticizing Kurds for not towing the administration's line, for not being team-players, you might say, or for not being good party members. It was good for Rubin's administration of choice when the Southern Kurds were restive against Saddam, but when they continued to act in Kurdish self-interest, in spite of America, then they became intolerable.

Ryan Grim is doing the very same thing by using Kurds against the Bush administration. Take a look at what old Ryan claims he found out about South Kurdistan:

What I found was not a newly free and democratic region, but a locked-down, corrupt police state run by gangsters with militias who took power following the Kurdish uprising in ’91. And these thugs—Bush’s democratic darlings—may be on the brink of tearing the country apart, and with it the dream of a stable Republic of Iraq.

A "stable Republic of Iraq" is whose dream?

Even old Ryan is no different than Michael Rubin or Dubya. He is an ardent supporter of a unified, stable Iraq, something Kurdish threatens, according to Ryan, Rubin and Dubya. It will be people like Ryan who will be the first ones to support death camps for Kurds because it was people like Ryan who supported mass graves and the use of chemical weapons against Kurds. After all, Kurds are "thugs" and "gangsters," so they deserve death camps and nerve agent.

South Kurdistan is a police state, all right, and the proof of this is the fact that Ryan's interpreter had a Kurdish version of a warrant out on him for "suspicious" parking. Suspicious parking? Give me a break! And this was in Hewlêr! If anyone's ever been to Hewlêr and has seen and experienced parking in Hewlêr, you'd be handing out tickets too. When a driver in Hewlêr returns to his badly parked car and sees a ticket on the windshield, what is the usual procedure? Flip the ticket out from under the windshield wiper, look at it, mumble something, wad it up, throw it away and drive off. No problem! I have news for Ryan: In a real police state, like the US, if you did something like that with your parking ticket, you'd get another ticket for littering.

Ryan expresses some concern about the fact that pêşmerge guard South Kurdistan's borders pretty hypocritical, given that Americans are so hypersensitive about their own borders, especially with Mexico. His claim that he had to register with South Kurdistanî police is irrelevant. He told the Turks that he was a journalist (possibly one of the dumbest things anyone could do), and he must have done the same thing in South Kurdistan. Like all other journalists in Kurdistan, he'd have to get press credentials or only end up talking to the ordinary folk, the kind he wouldn't be caught dead hanging out with in New York at cocktail hour.

Did our intrepid reporter--who really went to Kurdistan because he didn't have the proper male anatomy to qualify for a trip to Baghdad--tell us anything about the recent student protest in Koya? Or about the protest in Helebce? Or about the PÇDK protest in Silêmanî? Did he bother to find out about what is going on with building new infrastructure for water or electricity? Did he bother to find out why gasoline prices have skyrocketed in the last few months? Did he bother to find out what the "locked-down, corrupt police state run by gangsters" was doing about all these matters? Of course not, because this isn't about Kurds and it isn't about corruption. It's only about America.

You can bet that when Kurds begin protesting government and party corruption in earnest, or if the neighbors begin carving up South Kurdistan to add it to the parts of Kurdistan that were aportioned to them by the West, Ryan Grim and the cocktail crowd at The Brooklyn Rail will be far from the action.

There is a reference to a Knight-Ridder report, too. That is a blast from the Rastî past, and it's something to remember. Ryan Grim and Justin Raimundo both reference a news outlet that has proven itself to be firmly anti-Kurd. Coincidence? Not on your life.

I have one piece of advice for anyone who is going to get information from the Internet. Always check the "About" page, if a website has one, because it can be a useful open source for information for whom is writing what and why. The Brooklyn Rail's "About" page turns out to be a very fruitful source, if you're not nauseated by the time you finish reading. Clearly, this source is perfectly in-sync with "PR-driven journalism" because it is "PR-driven journalism," hence my characterization of its "gangster" article as agitprop. In spite of the claim that The Brooklyn Rail has no agenda, The Brooklyn Rail clearly has an agenda. If they were honest about it, they'd admit it. Continue reading at that page and pay attention to all the self-congratulatory, elitist back-slapping going on.

Naturally, the back-slapping is never so extreme as to cause one of these intellectuals to spill even a molecule of their cocktails.

NEGATIVE PEACE

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for someone else's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.'" ~ Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Well, well, well, it appears that Erdogan was under orders not to say anything more than "Roj baş" to Amed mayor Osman Baydemir on Sunday. Osman had cancelled his trip to Hewlêr in order to remain in Amed for Erdogan's visit and I suspect, since Osman and other DTP politicians had wanted to meet with Erdogan in mid-April, that Osman was hoping to have a meeting.

It didn't happen. Why? Two reasons come to mind. First is the fact that Erdogan went to Amed for an AKP meeting and I suspect he wanted to rally the troops, so to speak, for possible early elections. The idea of early elections has been wafting through the media lately. In connection with this, Erdogan probably wanted to test the water and get an idea of how AKP stands in The Region, if there are early elections. The level of AKP strength would, naturally, give Erdogan an idea of when a call for early elections would be optimal for AKP.

The second reason is somewhat related to the first. Osman Baydemir has been a popular mayor and DTP has been visible, especially since the Semdinli incident, which makes DTP a threat to predominately Turkish parties in The Region. What politician wants to be upstaged by a more popular, local politician? This is the superficial read of the situation, though. I think there may be a deeper purpose to Erdogan's continued refusal to meet with anyone from DTP and that purpose comes from the pashas. Since the Semdinli incident, not only has DTP appeared more popular, it has also become a target for other incidents, incidents which begin to touch on the tradition of black operations in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan.

There have been attempts to prosecute DTP politicians for supporting Roj TV, for speaking Kurdish, for sending Newroz cards that have Kurdish, Turkish and English greetings--the Kurdish greetings are the problem here--and DTP politicians had begun to receive death threats in the mail from suspicious addresses. Since the serhildan, DTP politicians have been arrested en masse. The goal of all this, I suspect, is to send DTP down the same road that all other pro-Kurdish parties have been sent by the state, and that is the road to illegality. The state is preparing to do away with DTP, just as it did with HADEP and just as it did with DEHAP. DTP is too popular and too Kurdish, although the public reasons for outlawing it will be the same as before: it will be called "separatist" and "terrorist."

Time will tell.

In the meantime, Mehmet Ali Birand has something worth taking a look at over at TDN. As usual, Mehmet and I come to completely different conclusions about things, but he does come up with some truth every once in a while. Mehmet seems to think that Erdogan is going to use a more-carrot-less-stick approach to the Kurdish problem that Turkey created for itself.

Mehmet says Erdogan's speech was directed to the people, which I find extremely difficult to believe, given that Erdogan was speaking to an AKP provincial convention. This means that the only people Erdogan was speaking to were AKP people. He won't talk to DTP people and he won't talk to Kurds, but he certainly did talk to AKP people. All you had to do was watch the video on Roj TV, of Erdogan speaking in Amed, to see that he wasn't talking to the people. Which puts Mehmet's list of Erdogan's talking points in a whole new light:

He [Erdogan] said nothing about the PKK, concentrating on how they had improved the lot of the ordinary people.

He asked if today was better than yesterday.

He talked about the increase in money in the pockets of ordinary people.

He promised an even better future.

Instead of violence and blood, he talked about daily lives.

He talked about how the new investments in the region would make their lives better.

Promises, promises. What did Kurds hear last August?

Mehmet thinks it was wise that Erdogan said these things to the (AKP) people. I think it was wise too, because if Erdogan had said those things to the real people, to the Kurds of Amed and, by extension, to the Kurds of all Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, there probably would have been violence and blood. All of these talking points are an insult to the people. These points are so far removed from the reality of the situation that they had to be composed by the MGK for propaganda consumption. The serhildan itself was an expression of the reality, of the frustration with the fact that nothing has been done for the region during the entire history of the TC. This is not part of any new plan and it's not part of any new anything. It is the same old denial, the same old willful ignorance that has guided Ankara's policies toward Kurds forever.

And that brings us to the second part of Mehmet's opinion, in which he quotes retired pasha Atilla Ates, and the funniest thing about all that Ates says is that he is not the only one to say it. I have said it over and over again:

He said the peace between 1999 and 2005 was wasted and that not enough attention was paid to satisfy the demands of the people. No social, economic or political measures were taken.

These are facts known by all.

For six or seven years, we forgot about everything. We thought PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan's incarceration had solved the Kurdish problem. We just ignored the problems that were there for all to see.

Exactly, and time lost can never be recovered. I can't even go so far as to characterize this lost time as "peace," because it wasn't peace. It was a quiet period or, perhaps, a negative peace, a mere temporary cessation of hostilities. People would say, "Ah! Things have gotten better!" but they hadn't. Time simply had a cold spell, a solid freeze, and the proof of that is the fact that the black operations and repression of the 1990's were so easily resumed last summer. This became abundantly clear on March 28, 2005 in Amed. Within days, the same tactics had spread throughout Kurdistan under Turkish occupation and with a vengeance to make up for lost time.

That everyone was "shocked by the escalation of violence" is the indicator that no one, not Erdogan, not the pashas, not the Turkish public and not the international community, has any idea of what the situation for Kurds is really like. As Mehmet reports that Ates says:

He noted that we do not know anything about the people who live in the region, adding that there was no effort to get to know them, either.

Exactly so. I think that most people who go to Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, whether they are Turk or not, go and look but they never see. They do not go with a heart for the people, because if you go and do more than simply look around, if you actually see, there are plenty of signs to read and the message is very clear. So when Osman Baydemir goes to Dicle University and tells the student protestors that they are brave and he understands why they protest, but please stop the violence, he does so because he sees. Or when the DTP mayor of Dogubayazit, Mukkades Kubilay, tells the outside world that her city needs help in the middle of a bird flu crisis, because the Turkish government has left the city in poverty, she does so because she sees.

Both of these people, and others, see deeply, not with the eyes, but with the heart, and at certain times and places in history, it is seeing with the heart that renders the clearest vision of reality. These are the people that Ankara refuses to listen to.

At least we know we are no longer enjoying a negative peace.

TURKEY ASKS FOR BRIBE FROM US OVER IRAN

“Heck, what's a little extortion among friends?" ~ Bill Watterson.

The leading headline at The New Anatolian made me laugh out loud today. At the office. From the reaction of office neighbors, I gathered they were sizing me up for a straitjacket. The headline in question reads, "Turkey seeks Iran compensation from US". Yeah, all right, I get it. They're calling it "compensation" these days. The accompanying photo is priceless, too, although I think it would have been more apropos if Gul had leaned over and given Ms. Rice a nice, big kiss on the cheek.

For those of you with long-term memory problems, you probably don't get the joke, so let me explain it to you.

In the days and months leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US and Turkey, and some other allies, engaged in a little haggling to guarantee who would behave themselves while the US conducted the war, and it got so bad that some commentators were refering to the coalition as "the coalition of the bought and paid for," among other things In the end, Turkey was finally offered the biggest bribe, totalling "about $6 billion in grants and up to $20 billion in loan guarantees," to woo the Ankara regime to the US side. Of course, there was never a need to pay up because all deals were off when the Turkish parliament overwhelmingly voted against Turkish involvement. Besides, Saddam was Turkey's friend and there had been a mutual understanding built between the two over the years, particularly when it came to the subject of those troublesome Kurds.

For those of you with longer-term memory problems, lets go back a little farther into history, and mention the fact that as the good ally of the US, and a member of the coalition of the willing during the Gulf War, Turkey held back on permitting US Air Force sorties from Incirlik during the first 48 hours of the war. That's right. I bet that one slipped your mind, but the fact is that the war started on 16 January, 1991, Washington time, and no one took off from Incirlik until 18 January. Someone over at the American Hellenic Institute even had the presence of mind to complain about this to some House Representatives in the year 2000. I guess these honorable gentlemen from the House had gone shooting off their mouths about what a great ally Turkey is to the US. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, especially for a congressman, but let me quote from the letter:

Turkey did not "serve with us" in Desert Storm. Turkish public opinion supported Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein. Throughout Desert Shield (August 2, 1990 - January 15, 1991), Turkey sat on the sidelines, refusing to send any forces to the U.S.-led Coalition, refusing to authorize the U.S. request for a second land front from Turkey (see Wash. Post, Jan. 16, 1991, at A6, col. 5), and refusing to allow the use of the NATO air base at Incirlik, Turkey.

Desert Storm began January 16, 1991. It was not until over 48 hours after the air war began and only after the Iraqi air force and air defenses had been neutralized and the U.S. had achieved air superiority, that Turkey changed its position and allowed a limited number of sorties from Incirlik NATO air base; and these sorties were clearly unnecessary by that time.

Turkey never sent any forces to the U.S.-led Coalition.

Even during the Clinton administration, bribes for Ankara gushed forth from Washington in the form of military hardware sales. Calling these bribes "sales" is probably done for the benefit of the American public, when, in reality, it was just a little more wool pulled a little more firmly over the eyes, because the fact is that the "sales" were heavily subsidized by the US taxpayer. I won't even go into the fact that the same taxpayer funds were also subsidizing "military production and employment in Turkey," as is true today. Not only were the US taxpayers screwed by their own government and Turkey in connection with all these shady dealings, but the Kurdish people were being murdered under this same system.

Alleged promises to the US by the Turkish government to clean up its atrocious human rights record, particularly with respect to its genocide of Kurds. No one ever bothered to ask why Turkey needed $800 million of weapons per year during the Clinton administration, but if they had the answer would have been clear. Except for a couple of years during the Korean War, and again in 1974 during the Turkish invasion of North Cyprus, all of Turkey's military activity, from the founding of the Republic until the present day on the "border" with South Kurdistan, was, and is, directed against the Kurdish people.

In addition, these facts blow to hell Turkey's contention, in The New Anatolian article, that it was sanctions against Saddam in the 1990's that insured Turkish-occupied Kurdistan remained undeveloped. It has been Turkey's war, dirty and conventional, the destruction of villages, the decimation of traditional agricultural livelihood, the extra-judicial murders, the impunity of security forces, the torture, and the forced deportations of Kurds that contributed to the "underdevelopment" that characterized the official policy of the Ankara regime toward the Kurdish people since 1923. For an overview of the economics of underdevelopment as practiced by Ankara, you should read--yes, if you don't know, you should be reading--Paul White's Primitive Rebels or Revolutionary Modernizers? or David McDowall's A Modern History of the Kurds.

In short, it was not sanctions against Saddam that kept Turkish-occupied Kurdistan underdeveloped; it was, and continues to be, Ankara's own policies that keep The Region impoverished.

What is the bribe--or should I call it extortion, or should I be politically correct and call it compensation?--going to get Uncle Sam for his money? Well, Turkey won't go along with a UN security council resolution if it doesn't get the bribe, but even with a bribe, it's still not a sure thing. The Ankara regime is crying about how economic sanctions alone won't work against Iran. Besides, Turkey is going to be hurting from all the loss of trade it conducts with those fat, rich mullahs, to the tune of $1.144 billion in the first quarter of this year alone. I don't suppose they included their drug-trafficking industry in those figures, do you? I mean, that would probably look pretty darned bad, even though it would certainly make the $1.144 billion figure soar like one of NASA's shuttles heading off for the space station.

All of this weasling on the part of the Ankara regime reminds me of a line in the article from the Regnum News Agency last week. The Russians said:

The Turks advised Larijani [Ali Larijani--the mullah's National Security Secretary] to put off his visit for early May, i.e. after Rice’s visit. They may well act as a go-between at the talks with Larijani by telling him what the US has said. This is quite typical of Ankara: to get most of the tensions between two allies and to act as a negotiator between them.

Oh, yeah, baby! That sounds like the Ankara I know, and that sounds exactly like what I'm hearing from The New Anatolian. The Regnum article appeared on 2 May, last Tuesday, so it's not a whole week yet and the weasling has started. Turkey really doesn't sound like it's too hot to cooperate with its ally, but that's nothing new. I think they'd much prefer direct US-mullah talks, as they claim in the article, because then the mullahs would report to Ankara everything the US says. Just like Ankara tells the mullahs everything the US says.

So what's the bottom line at this moment? What's it going to take to bribe Turkey this time? The US tipped its hand back in 2003, and now Turkey is going to play on desperation. Let's see. . . if Turkey claims a potential quarterly loss in trade with the evil Teheran regime at $1.144 billion, then Uncle Sugar is going to have to fork over quite a load. The initial price offered in the opening round of goat-trading stands at "tens of billions of dollars." That was plural for ten, in case you missed it, as in twenty, or thirty, or sixty or ninety billion dollars. Now we can all sit back and watch for Uncle Sugar's counter-offer, and as the goat-trading develops, we'll get a pretty good idea of how desperate old Uncle Sugar is getting.

Oops! I forgot to mention one little thing that might shed some light on this claim of the loss of tens of billions of dollars as a result of sanctions against Saddam. I suspect it may have more to do with the fact that the US promised to cover any of Turkey's "major expenses" incurred as a result of the Gulf War, something which the US conveniently forgot to do. Maybe this was tit-for-tat for Turkey's refusal to allow the use of Incirlik during the first 48 hours of the same war. Ah, well! That's international politics for you.

The show's starting, folks. Hurry up with the popcorn!

HARD QUESTIONS AND ERRAND BOYS

"You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill." ~ Colonel Kurtz, Apocalypse Now.

The AKP tried to make a presence in Amed yesterday and today, but the visits of Joost Lagendijk and Recep Tayyip Erdogan are not what they appear to be on the surface. In other words, they did not go to Amed over concern for the Kurdish situation, but to test the water for AKP's support in The Region, in preparation for possible early elections.

Lagendijk has been a strong supporter of the AKP for some time. Back in December, he criticized Kurds by making statements that Kurds were "making strategic mistakes," particularly because they had not supported Erdogan's August visit to Amed. During that visit, as everyone may remember, Erdogan admitted that, in the past, the Turkish government had "mishandled relations with the nation's minority Kurds," which was probably the closest any Turkish politician would get to an imitation of Clinton's, "I feel your pain," remark. The PKK declared a one-month ceasefire in order to see what the response would be by the government, and Osman Baydemir responded positively to Erdogan's remarks, saying that they formed "a foundation" for a new relationship between Kurds and the Turkish government.

Then, absolutely nothing happened, not until November, anyway. In November, the true rulers of Turkey made their response at a bookstore in a small Kurdish city in the far southeast of The Region, a response that has come to be known as the Semdinli Bombing. At the time, Erdogan insisted the government would get to the bottom of the affair, particularly since the incident caused widespread mass protests by infuriated Kurds, and besides that, the whole thing caused an image problem for Turkey. Nothing came of these words either, except to cover up the incident by blaming it on PKK and installing surveillance cameras in The Region.

Now Lagendijk has gone to Amed and, in preparation for his visit, stated that he would lecture Amed's Kurdish politicians on the necessity of opposing PKK and "PKK violence"--whatever that means, because it is a phrase that has no clear meaning when coming from the Turkish side and Lagendijk is definitely on the Turkish side. The funny thing is that Amed's politicians tend to be predominately DTP, but Lagendijk has never made a comment on the wholesale arrest of DTP politicians since the Amed serhildan. How are Kurds supposed to engage in political means to achieve equality when all political avenues are always closed off by Turkish security forces? This hypocrisy is never addressed by anyone, least of all by Joost Lagendijk and compañeros.

Another funny thing is that it was PKK "violence" that proved to the Turkish state that Kurds did, in fact, exist.

Lagendijk also went to Amed to spread the propaganda that Turkey is going to offer a better future for Kurds through EU accession, naturally. However, EU accession may not be exactly as advertised, and I seriously question the sincerity of Europe on the subject of human rights for Kurds, given Lagendijk's comments that "most Kurds have already become a part of the EU, adding that the remainder will sooner or later and understand the benefits of membership in the bloc." Oh, really? Then this means that the EU approves of severe repression of Kurds. It means that Kurds are already fifth-class citizens of Europe.

In connection with that, there is some enlightening reporting at TDN. The Czech president made a visit to Turkey last month, and about his speech at the Middle East Technical University in Ankara, Yuksel Soylemez at TDN made the following comment:

In his informal, off-the-cuff but most illuminative talk coming from an experienced academic to a distinguished audience, President Klaus, as expected from him, defended an EU with "deeper economic integration as opposed to lesser and lesser political integration." He is an ardent Thatcherite. He argued that economic benefits of membership grow immeasurably with the start of the process towards membership.

Alarm bells should be sounding in Kurdish ears upon reading this quote. Early last week, I said that Kurds needed to begin demanding answers to hard questions of the EU, and that if the answers were not forthcoming, the EU should be told to go to hell. This quote to a Turkish audience by the Czech president is an excellent opportunity to begin with the hard questions. First of all, what exactly does the EU mean with regard to "deeper economic integration as opposed to lesser and lesser political integration?" Is this a confirmation of my suspicion that, since the EU got it's start as a strictly economic organization, isn't that its main raison d'etre?

If EU accession is only about economics, which is exactly what it now appears to be, given that EU politicians are in full support of Turkey's domestic policies of repression against the Kurdish people, then what is the EU and Turkish plan for North Kurdistan? Isn't it really all about the economic exploitation of North Kurdistan's natural and human resources? Isn't "lesser and lesser political integration" a clever way of saying that the EU will take a hands-off approach to continued Turkish human rights abuses against the Kurdish people, and that it will reinforce "territorial integrity" in whatever way Ankara defines it?

In case anyone thinks I am exaggerating or have gone barking mad, let's take a quick stroll down memory lane and examine a similar situation which affected Southern Kurds and the atrocities the Saddam government inflicted on them. After the US Senate approved the Prevention of Genocide Act, it moved to the House of Representatives where it met stiff opposition, not only for political (i.e. diplomatic) reasons, but particularly for special interest reasons. The strict economic sanctions required by the Prevention of Genocide Act were less palatable by American manufacturers and farmers, and their representatives in the House, than were the fact of dead Kurds. Kurds were sacrificed on the altar of economics, special interests deeply connected to national interests, and the almighty US dollar. The Europeans will be no less greedy and, once again, dead Kurds or Kurds totally stripped of any human, political, or cultural rights--and how does that differ from death?--will be the easy sacrifice for EU-Turkish economic interests.

Hard questions . . . another hard question is hidden in Soylemez' article, and that one has to do with the Czech-Slovak split, and the acknowledgement that Czechoslovakia was, in fact, an "artificial union." This remark should raise hard questions about the legitimacy of an artificial union of Turkey and North Kurdistan, especially given all of the atrocities that have been committed by the Turkish government in the last 83 years of the Republic's existence. Naturally, Soylemez uses the idea of "artificial union" to support Turkey's questionable claim to North Cyprus, but it will probably never occur to him to explore the idea in relation to Kurds. It probably won't occur to the Europeans either, because for them, it is only a question of economics and not one of justice.

Erdogan's remarks today, in Amed, are such huge lies, that they are firm proof he has embarked on the campaign trail. From Reuters:

"We are trying to bring about long-delayed justice as soon as possible. We want to eradicate imbalances between regions," he told a party conference, where he also condemned children being targeted by violence.

"We are hurrying with all our strength to make up for the errors of the past," he said. "If we don't win together, we will be condemned to lose together," Erdogan, who released two white doves into the crowd, said.

The IHD's recent report on the human rights violations during the serhildan (posted yesterday on Rastî) are in direct contradiction to these statements, and any win or loss referred to by Erdogan has nothing to do with Kurds, but everything to do with AKP's prospects in the next elections. I am willing to bet that there's another reason for Erdogan's visit to Amed today, which is that he wanted to prevent Osman Baydemir from travelling to Hewlêr for the opening of the KRG Parliament, in which a single Kurdish administration has been approved. Whether or not this will become reality is another question, but the whole symbology of DTP politicians, including the mayor of the capital of Greater Kurdistan, being present for a vote of Southern Kurdish unity is something the Turks oppose.

Let's also consider the fact that DTP politicians asked to meet with Erdogan in the wake of the serhildan, but Erdogan emphatically refused any meeting. Now, conveniently in time for the opening of the Kurdish Parliament, an event Osman Baydemir planned to attend, Erdogan makes his second ever visit to Amed. Since it wouldn't look good for Osman to be denied permission to go to Hewlêr, and since it looks better for Erdogan to appear in Amed, no doubt the order was given by the pashas that Erdogan should agree to meet with Osman, perhaps for a couple of minutes.

Erdogan also took the opportunity to deliver the pashas' message about attacking the children of the TSK. Why are the families of the TSK in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan anyway? I mean, this is as ridiculous as it would have been for the US Army to bring the families of GI's to Vietnam, and if anything happened to those families, it would have been the clear fault of the US Army for allowing such a stupid policy. On the other hand, Erdogan was the one to redefine the boundaries of the war:

“For those who keep their children in the streets or allow them to be used by them, their tears tomorrow will be in vain.” He [Erdogan] has insisted that “Our security forces will do what is necessary against those who have become the pawns of terrorists, whoever they are, even if they are women or children”.

It's okay, Erdogan. We know you are only an errand boy.



A GREAT READ: Again, from Onnik Krikorian at OneWorld Multimedia, there is a great post about the Yezidis in Armenia and Kurdish nationalism, including a discussion of Yezidi PKK şehîds and support for PKK: Kurdish Nationalism in Armenia.

Absolutely fascinating!

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS DURING THE AMED SERHILDAN

A report by the Amed branch of the IHD (Human Rights Association) is out:

Investigation and observation report into human rights violations which occurred during the funeral on 28 March 2006 in Diyarbakir

6 April 2006

BY: Human Rights Association (INSAN HAKLARI DERNEGI - KOMELEYA MAFÊN MIROVAN)

FACTS

The bodies of four of the 14 armed militants (Bulent Tanisik, born in Diyarbakir, Muzaffer Pehlivan born in Lice, Diyarbakir, Fatih Cetin born in Cinar, Diyarbakir, Mahmut Guler born in Kulp, Diyarbakir) who were killed on 24.03.2006 were brought to Diyarbakir on 28.03.2006, after the autopsies were completed at Malatya State Hospital they were buried in Yeni Koy Cemetery. The militants were killed during a military operation conducted in Centrum of Mus, Kulp district of Diyarbakir, Genc and Solhan districts of Bingol. Events occurred just after funeral ceremony, first in Ofis borough then continuing through several other boroughs in Diyarbakir. On the way back from the cemetery the crowd of people who had joined the funeral, faced police intervention when they arrived “10 Nisan” Police Station where hard safety measures had been taken. It also transpired that several F-16s had flown sorties over the cemetery.

The police attacked the crowd with panzers, and the youths in the crowd responded with Molotov cocktails. Meanwhile the police used tear gas and opened fire into the sky. As a result of the police opening fire Mehmet Akbulut (18) was seriously injured; he was taken to the Faculty of Medicine at Dicle University and placed in intensive care but died on 31.03.2006. The panzers caught fire when they were hit by Molotov cocktails. During the intervention correspondents from Cihan News Agency and TV 21 were also wounded.

A group of demonstrators, who arrived in Ofis borough, broke the windows of offices of official bodies, political party buildings, a bank branch and shops. Due to the escalation of events, first in Baglar borough, the shop keepers put down their shutters.

Read the rest at KurdishMedia, including the violence of security forces against the population, the closure of access for injured and dying to the State Hospital, attacks against detainees' lawyers by security forces, and much more.

Now tell me, who are the real terrorists?

UTILITARIANISM

“Nothing can have value without being an object of utility” ~ Karl Marx.

There is a commentary at Israpundit from someone else who distrusts everything that the US and EU, and all their little allies, become involved with. I could find no link to indicate who wrote the comments or what the source is--and it's always important to evaluate sources--but there are some points made about the Kurdish situation in general. As a whole, it would seem that the author has just discovered the fact that there are no "friends" in politics, but only alliances, which I define as relationships to further one's own political interests. On the other hand, friendship is something which I define as only existing at the personal and individual level.

Given Kurdish history of the twentieth century, it is an extreme absurdity to speak of "friends" or "friendship" between the Kurdish people and any nation-state. The verb most frequently employed for the relationship between the Kurdish nation and other nations is the verb "to use," as can be seen in some of the comments on this blog post about Kurds. The ideas expressed by such phrases as "perhaps we are using," or "we should be using," Kurds, should set our teeth on edge. Another thing to notice about these kinds of comments, is that people who make them leave the impression that Kurds exist only in the small piece of land known as South Kurdistan, otherwise figuratively known as the "Good Kurds," with "good" having the meaning of "useful for someone else's interests." This is in opposition to the "Bad Kurds," those troublesome, restive and "terrorist" Kurds of Turkish-occupied Kurdistan, who, just as the "Good Kurds" of the South legitimately took up arms against successive Baghdad regimes, legitimately took up, and still do legitimately take up, arms against the occupying forces of the Ankara and Teheran regimes.

As I have noted before, it will be interesting to see if similar comment-writers ever take notice of the Kurds in Syrian- and Iranian-occupied Kurdistan, and, if they do, to see which label they will apply--Good or Bad. In other words, it will be interesting to see how useful the Rojavayî and Rojhelatî will be for the US, the EU, and all their little allies. In all of this, I am reminded of Şêx Mehmûd Berzincî, "whom the British never forgave for trying to use them in order to establish an independent Kurdistan, instead of allowing them to use him in order to subdue it," as Dr. Martin van Bruinessen so accurately puts it in Agha, Shaikh and State.

The most important thing to remember is that these enemies of Kurdistan all work together for their own interests and, by doing so, acquiesce in attempts to destroy the Kurdish people, even if individual self-interests do not have that destruction as their ultimate goal. The US and the EU are accomplices to the ultimate Turkish, Iranian, and Arab cultural and physical genocide, which means they share the guilt of the crime.

The commentary posted at Israpundit mentions that the US government supports HAMAS, which should be interesting to Kurds because of the fact that HAMAS is on The List®, just as the PKK is. We have not heard anything about Rice and Gul's discussions on HAMAS, not nearly as much as we have heard about PKK, which is interesting for two reasons. First, it would not be good for the image of either the US or Turkey to make a media event of the hypocrisy involved with any discussions between the two governments about HAMAS. Secondly, any such public discussion of this subject would be the slippery slope into the abyss of hypocrisy in which The List® was created, and from which it draws all its energy. To fall into that abyss would require a public discussion of Turkish atrocities against the Kurdish people, and America's overwhelming support for those atrocities. It would also involve a discussion of Europe's recent slide into that same abyss, clearly indicated by its recent support for the TSK and all other Turkish security force operations against Kurds, whether aimed at Kurdish military or political targets.

All of those who loudly clamor for the end of PKK, know exactly what they are clamoring for, and that is the complete destruction of the Kurdish people under Turkish occupation, in any way that it can be accomplished--by forced assimilation or by death. There is no way, otherwise, to remove PKK. Every time in the past, when the Ankara regime has declared the end of the PKK, it has always raised a defiant head, because that defiance which characterizes the Kurdish resistance, and which is derived from love of Kurdistan, is the inspiration for Kurds to seek an answer from the mountains. If there had ever been a political avenue under Turkish occupation for Kurds to use to insure justice, or if Turkey's allies, the US and EU, had ever used diplomatic and political means to end the severe repression of Kurds under Turkish-occupation, there would have been no need for Kurdish armed resistance. Apparently, it was not in the self-interests of these parties to seek justice for Kurds, it is not in their self-interests now, and it will not be in their self-interests in the future. Reliance upon them is, therefore, futile. Joost Lagendijk's current visit to Turkey reinforces Rice's recent visit on the matter of Kurds, as well as PKK. In fact, as Lagendijk's recent statement proves, the EU believes that Kurds will, one way or another, be forcibly assimilated.

The last item in the commentary article at Israpundit mentions the approval of the US for Turkish action against Kurds, even against South Kurdistan, saying, "Condi Rice has given the Turks the go-ahead to butcher the Kurds once again." Continued US support for butchering Kurds is consistent with past policies. However, there is an new angle from which to view future butchery, and that is the recent discovery of oil in South Kurdistan by the Norwegian company, DNO. It is no longer merely Kerkuk or Mûsil that are lucrative possibilities for Turkish militarist expansionism, but now all of South Kurdistan is a cash cow to be milked dry by the perpetually dismal Turkish economy. Why should Turkey be content to serve as the terminus for so many pipeline schemes, when it could own, by invasion, one entire system, at least, from beginning to end?

For a backgrounder on the energy question, the Baku Ceyhan Campaign site is a must read.

Everyone agrees there are deals to be had and profits to be made, with the only fly in the ointment being "terrorism," Kurdish "terrorism" in this case. Since HAMAS doesn't suffer from the region's curse--oil--they are acceptable partners for everyone. Kurds, on the other hand, are not acceptable partners, because the Kurdish dream of independence would reduce the control of Kurdish oil by occupiers. It is in the self-interests of the US, the EU, Turkey, and the rest of Kurdistan's neighbors to manipulate the current political situation in order to guarantee their full exploitation of Kurdish resources. Since it has become clear, through the experiment in self-rule in South Kurdistan, that Kurds are more than capable of governing themselves, it means that all Kurds are more than capable of the same.

Will the future, shaped by the enemies of Kurdistan, guarantee places on The List® for the KDP and PUK, as it does now for the PKK? Will the Kurds of the South become "Bad" then? When that happens, will it serve as the catalyst to Kurdish unity, or will it fuel greater division? The answer to such a question is moot, but the proposal of such a question means that it is time to remove all blinders and see the situation as it truly is. Now is the time for Kurdish political organizations to engage in pan-confederalism, leaving behind the divisions of the past and working together to use all others for pan-Kurdish self-interest.

If you listen carefully, you will hear the sound of hoofbeats. This is the sound of the Four Horsemen of the next Kurdish apocalypse. They may be distant yet, but it sounds to me as if they are coming this way.




[An NPR report on Iranian bombing of PKK/PJAK can be heard here]

ON A MUCH LIGHTER NOTE . . . There are some great photos of Yezidi kids here, here, and here by Onnik Krikorian from Oneworld Multimedia. The main page for this blog is in the sidebar, and I suggest you check out Onnik regularly, as he posts a lot of info and photos on Yezidi Kurds and Kurds often. The photos are always great.

ALLIES AND ENEMIES

"God defend me from my friends; from my enemies I can defend myself." ~ Anonymous.

One of the most accurate assessments of the current situation in Kurdistan seems to be coming from Russia. There is no doubt that Russia is a regional player and has been heavily involved with the Middle East lately, particularly with Turkey and Iran, as well as the rest of the Arab/Muslim world. During the Cold War, Russia cultivated relationships in this part of the world, and they seem to be at work to renew those relationships. As a result, it should be no surprise that the Russians are carefully watching the military moves of Turkey and Iran. Add to all that the energy resources of the Caucasus and Central Asia, and there is something to sweeten the pot.

A Regnum News Agency article accurately relates the build up of recent events, seen in the light of Condoleeza Rice's recent trip to the region at the end of April, a trip that coincided, coincidentally, at the same time that Turkey and Iran began to mass their security forces up to, and into, South Kurdistan.

We are reminded of the flurry of activity between Washington and Ankara back in December, 2005, when the CIA, FBI, and ATC met with a number of officials of the Ankara regime. The Ankara visits were reciprocated, also in December, 2005, by Yasar Buyukanit's 6-day visit to Washington, as a guest of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Buyukanit is scheduled to become chief of the Turkish General Staff this August, which means that he will become the de facto ruler of Turkey. Throughout the winter, officials from both governments continued to visit and meet, and this activity, all in preparation for Rice's visit, was capped by the March, 2006, visit of General Peter Pace to Ankara, to meet with the current chief of the Turkish General Staff, Hilmi Ozkok. In all of these meetings, the same themes were discussed: PKK, Iraq, and Iran.

The result? A new relationship defined by something called a Common Strategic Vision, in which, as Rice said in Ankara, "Turkey is the US' key partner":

The brief few-page Common Strategic Vision will consist of three main chapters: (1) fight with terrorism, (2) relations with the EU, (3) Big Middle East project and addenda concerning Cyprus, PKK, Iran, Iraq, the Middle East peace process and relations with Russia. To date, the US has a similar document only with India.

The Turkish public, steeped as it is in anti-Americanism, was properly groomed to accept Rice's visit by massive propaganda efforts by the Turkish media. This is the same media that was grooming the same public for violence during Newroz, a grooming that should have also served to propagandize Washington about the grave threat of the PKK (i.e. the Kurds). Unfortunately for the pashas, Kurds did not respond according to propaganda. This resulted in the need to provoke the Kurds in a much more visceral way, which Turkish security forces did by firing on Kurds who had attended funerals of four PKK gerîlas in Amed, at the end of March. This provocation, and the propaganda campaign that followed, paved the way for Rice's visit and helped to secure US approval of the use of Turkish military force against Kurds:

. . . Rice did not give a specific yes to Turkey’s request to stifle PKK’s positions in Northern Iraq or to let it do it itself. At the same time, she hinted that the US may close its eyes on this, i.e. on a forthcoming Turkish military operation in Northern Iraq. It’s noteworthy that Turkey launched this operation while Rice was still in its territory. So, we can say that the US has, in fact, given a sanction to it.

[ . . . ]

Yet one more interesting point of fact is that Turkey had launched its all-time big anti-Kurdish military campaign exactly by the time of Rice’s Ankara visit. Fearing Europe’s anger, Turkey had, thereby, tried to “legitimize” its action. Turkey’s goal is to curb the activity of Kurds in its south-eastern regions, to provoke them into counter-action and, with US acquiescence, to track the fighters down to Northern Iraq and to put an end to them there. This is, in fact, a repetition of campaigns it used to hold in Saddam times.

According to the article at Regnum, this renewed military cooperation between the US and Turkey may also mean that the US has bought Ankara's arguments about Kerkuk, thereby effectively handing over this Kurdish city to future Turkish control. At the same time that Turkish and Iranian security forces began attacking Kurds, Ankara's current proxies, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, began moving into Kerkuk. This arrangement was most likely made by al-Ja'afari during his trip to Ankara in February, 2006. In al-Ja'afari's entourage, Kurds were conspicuous by their absence. This might also explain the coincidental formation of an Iraqi Turkmen group in Kerkuk last month, whose goal is an autonomous Turkmen region in Iraq. Since the US has returned to its pattern of betrayal, has it approved Turkey to secure an autonomous Turkmen region in Kerkuk?

The speculation is that the US is using the Kurds, dangling independence before them, but always just out of reach, in an attempt to guarantee Kurdish cooperation with Washington's plans, especially regarding Iran. If this is the game, the Kurds should cease all cooperation with the US, particularly since it has approved the bombing of Kurds. There should also be no cooperation with the US as regards its plans for Iran, especially if those plans will call for the use of indigenous gerîla or insurgent forces. Already, the Kurds in PJAK have been fighting the mullah regime, but the US has also given approval, most likely through Turkey, for Iran to cross the Iraqi border and bomb Kurds. Is it any coincidence that the Turkish Transport Minister managed to arrive back from Iran in time to meet with Erdogan, after his MGK meeting on 27 April?

Since the US approves of the attacks on the only Kurdish "insurgents" who have been attacking the mullah regime, how does the US think it will use Kurds to "break stability in Iran through local Kurds?"

For more information on PJAK, including how some in the US have already tried to use PJAK for their own interests, see the Middle East Foundation blog. Keep in mind that, like the PKK, PJAK has never targeted Americans, unlike the MEK, to whom it is compared by certain ignoramuses (i.e. US congressmen and the author of that blog entry) at that link. Check the links in that blog article, too. An interesting read can be found at a Caucaz article, from August, 2005, on PJAK. Last August, during the serhildan in Rojhelat, it was PJAK who actively engaged Teheran's dirty security forces. Everyone else stood around and watched.

In the meantime, the KRG announces that it's waiting to issue a statement on Iran's bombing, a bombing which, so far, has resulted in the death of one civilian Kurd. Instead of sending pêşmerge to defend Kurdish lives and property against an aggressor who has committed an act of war, why is the KRG still unable to decide what position to take? Does it need Rice's approval?

There is one other interesting item of note from the Regnum article:

Turkey’s key argument is the fear of its generals that a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran may break the balance of forces between Ankara and Tehran.

Pakistan is in the nuclear club. Iran claims to be in the nuclear club. Turkey has recently begun propagandizing its desire for "nuclear energy." Isn't that the excuse Iran uses? The truth is expressed in the fear of the pashas, and it should be seriously suspected at this point, that the pashas want nuclear parity with the neighbors. They will use the US to keep Iran off balance until they have at least achieved the same level of nuclear capacity that Iran claims to have. They are not interested in nuclear energy. They want a bomb.

Turkish propaganda for this, the most recent betrayal of Kurds by the US, has already hit the American media. The Turkish propagandist, Tulin Daloglu, was last heard from during the flurry of Washington/Ankara visits last December. Lo and behold, she turns up again, at The Washington Times to propagandize Rice's recent visit. This piece of propaganda is in the critical mode, telling us how the US hasn't done enough to help Turkey battle "terrorists." She is trying to appeal to American fears of terrorists (i.e. Kurds). Notice too, how she lies by ommission regarding joint Turkish/Iranian miltary operations against PKK. She speaks of such theoretical operations using the conditional mood, "The Turkish military should launch an operation in Iran, in conjunction with Iranian forces, against the PKK." Now I am scratching my head and wondering why she thinks that Turkey should launch an operation in Iran against PKK when it has already launched an operation in Iraq against PKK. But she doesn't mention anything about that, does she?

With the exception of Syria, Iran's boy who has enough troubles of its own, she lies again, saying: "Even in the absence of a common military operation with Iran and Syria against the PKK . . ." The reality is that there is already a common military operation between Turkey and Iran, in Dohuk Governorate, Hewler Governorate and in Kerkuk.

Her last line gives away Turkey's objective:

Iranian cooperation with Turkey, a NATO country, against a terrorist organization recognized by both the United States and the EU could open an unprecedented dialogue.

Go on, suckers! Fall for it!



Please note: The use of democratic means of protest are forbidden in Amed. The best way to prevent such legitimate political expressions is to arrest the organizers.

BIRTHDAY WISHES

Rojbuna te pîroz be, Leyla!

YOUNG KURDS, OLD KURDS AND LADY LIBERTY

“Remember, remember always that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists” ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I tend not to follow US domestic news for a number of reasons. First of all, it's because my mind is generally some 7,000 miles away from here. Also, US domestic news is pretty damned banal. I mean, most of the time I can't figure out why something is newsworthy because problems here tend to be, for the most part, pretty, well, banal, especially when I consider the really bad stuff that's going down elsewhere. But recently, there has been a lot of noise on the US domestic news scene about immigrants, so much noise, in fact, that even I have noticed it out there on the periphery of all those things that I really pay attention to.

Kurds are one of the newest ethnic groups in the US, it is a small group, and, of course, the majority are immigrants. Many of the young Kurds of this new American ethnic community came here as children, or even as babies.

So it's a bit on cue, in a way, that some friends at the Kurdish American Youth organization have been working on a little project about problems that these young Kurds face in the US, and they have just published an article about their findings on one of the problems, that of runaways.

This may not seem like a big deal, but it is a big deal because the Kurdish community, wherever it's located, does not like to air these kinds of matters in public. Of course, in Kurdistan there is a cultural structure in place--more so in some places than others--so that problems like this can be handled in a traditional way and they don't become as big an issue for the community as they do in America. In America, or the West in general, you hide problems within the community so that when problems get out of control and burst into the media of the dominant culture, it's too late, as in the tragic case of the lovely Banaz Mahmoud Babakir Agha in the UK recently. This example is one from the darkest part of the struggle to balance the traditional way of life with the newer.

What is happening here is a blend of a generational and a cultural clash which has come about as a result of immigration to the West. What the Kurdish community as a whole may not realize, however, is that it is not the first immigrant community in America to face this kind of tension. If one reads accounts of immigrants and their children who arrived in the US a hundred or more years ago, one will see similarities to the Kurdish immigrant situation of today, even as they are recounted in Ara Alan's article. The parents and older children work several jobs in order to establish the family in the new country. The parents try to maintain cultural identity in the only way they know how--the way it was done in the old country. The children, especially the younger ones who grow up in the public school system, making American friends, and becoming more and more exposed to American culture feel the pull to become more American. No one has to reinvent the wheel here, but look to other immigrant groups to find what worked for them and then adapt it to the Kurdish-American situation.

Neither the older generation, the parents, nor the youth are wrong. The problem is that there is no communication, no effort on the part of the community to find a balance between the two sides. Their parents have done the right thing to teach them Kurdish culture, to enshrine it in the home and insist it not be forgotten. On the other side, young Kurds know that they are Kurds as well as Americans, and they are committed to their traditional culture in their own ways, including committing themselves to work toward greater awareness of the situation in Kurdistan among the American people. For lack of an official Kurdish foreign ministry, these young Kurds are the de facto ambassadors of Kurdistan in their new land.

The whole question of culture and politics is something that no one can tear out of a Kurd. A Kurd can only remove these things from himself by assimilation. But assimilation is not required by America, integration is. No one in America can forbid a Kurd from speaking Kurdish, learning Kurdish, publishing in Kurdish, singing in Kurdish. No one can silence a Kurd from saying the word, "Kurdistan" and no one can forbid a Kurd from working politically for Kurdistan. As a result, there is no need to fear that young Kurds will forget who they are. On the contrary, they are in a place where they have the freedom to contribute to Kurdish culture and tradition and carry it into the future. As an example, look at what happened with Kurdish culture when Kurds moved to Europe. The last fifteen years or so have seen a renaissance of Kurdish language, culture and tradition, that may be unparalleled in history. Exposure to the liberty available in the West, has been fertile soil for Kurds, hence there is no need to fear it.

I don't think the parents realize how deeply attached young Kurds are to the motherland, some 7,000 miles away from here. Their children bring no shame to them, but only honor. It is my wish that the parents would begin to see this and to hear their young Kurds.

To mention something that is particularly connected with the issue of runaways, what may be needed in this case is a safehouse, a temporary haven, in neutral territory, until the home situation can reach a negotiated settlement. By "neutral," I mean that this would probably need to be a place located outside the Kurdish community, among non-Kurds, in other words. Such a space would give the runaway a place of refuge, among people who are not judgemental, and help to reduce acts of desperation. This is my initial suggestion based on the information in the article, and it is something that must be discussed in order to find what will work. But it is a suggestion which has a parallel in traditional Kurdish culture, so it is a workable idea and it is my contribution, for the moment, to the subject.

I hope that this article will be the opening needed for a public discussion on the problems of young Kurds in America, as well as in the greater Diaspora. Let me say that I know for a fact, that the situation is extremely serious and that, for individual Kurds who are trapped in certain situations, it can, and does, become dire in the extreme.

It is already too much that certain governments eat young Kurds alive in Kurdistan. We don't need Kurdish families or Kurdish communities doing the same in Diaspora.

FORECAST: MORE REPRESSION?

I shot the sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense.
I shot the sheriff, and they say it is a capital offense.

~ Bob Marley.

First off, there is a petition online that will be sent to Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to draw attention to Turkey's disgraceful treatment of Kurds. The petition can be found here, anyone worldwide can sign it, and it might be a good idea to send a copy to your local congressperson, member of parliament, news media, and friends. . . anyone you can think of. Maybe we should all send a copy to Condoleeza Rice, because I seriously doubt that anyone in Ankara or Foggy Bottom has told her what the real deal is, and Dubya probably needs a few million copies in his inbox too.

Also, we still have a debate going on about the new anti-terror law. Bianet has several very good articles with analysis and criticism from Turkish human rights groups (IHD, TIHV, MAZLUMDER), various NGO's, and bar associations. In the first of these articles, the deputy chairman of MAZLUMDER argues the point that the proposed bill would create a backfire effect by effectively blocking the people's right to work politically to change the situation in Kurdistan, and in Turkey as a whole. The chairman feels that the political repression created by the new anti-terror law would force people to take up arms, and this is certainly true. This new law would only intensify the legitimacy of armed resistance against the regime, a legitimacy that has existed for a very long time now.

The deputy chairman states another truth, and that is that everyone knows exactly who this bill is aimed at--Kurds. However, if the situation were to change, the proposed law is so vague that it could be interpreted as targeting any other group, according to new circumstances. Given the ways in which the Turkish constitution, the TCK, and the 1991 Anti-Terror Law was interpreted (anyone remember Orhan Pamuk, or dozens of others, and Article 301?), it is a certainty that Turkey's judicial system will abuse the new law in exactly the same ways.

In a second article, a member of MAZLUMDER's executive board tries to talk about the idea of "non-violent" activities, citing the EU:

"The European Council regards 'violence' as a provision for an act of terror to be committed. In its verdicts, the ECHR observes activities that 'neither incite violence, nor armed resistance, nor uprising, nor enmity' within the scope of freedom of opinion and expression and regards anything adverse to these as a 'violation' of rights."

The problem here is contained in the phrase, "activities that 'neither incite violence. . .nor enmity." To quote the EU in the context of Turkish legal interpretation is ridiculous for the simple fact that neither Turkey nor the EU are singing from the same sheet of music. In other words, the way the EU interprets incitement to violence or incitement to enmity (or, as Turkey forever quotes "hatred") is in no way, shape or form, similar to the way Turkey interprets these things. The problem is there is no definition of terms. In order to discuss the same thing, two parties have to have the same definition of terms or, even though they are speaking the same words, the meanings behind the words are totally at odds with each other.

I also disagree with this interpretation of the EU about the use of violence and uprising. When the rights of the people have not been met, and every indication is that they will not be met, especially given the atrocities inflicted on the same people for almost a century, then armed resistance and uprising are totally legitimate expressions of the will of the people:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

And these truths don't just hold for Western folk. When you face a racist, fascist regime, these truths hold for everyone and, in the case of Turkey, there is certainly no "light and transient cause."

Other important issues made by the MAZLUMDER executive board member include: the fact that current legislation is already harsh enough and doesn't need to be augmented by the new anti-terror law; the problem of granting excessive authority to security forces, as Erdogan did when he gave permission to shoot Kurdish women and children, is included in the proposed law; the fact that detention regulations will place detainees in a de facto incommunicado situation; the dispensation of the need for warrants, and how this will allow security forces to restrict individuals because they "might" commit a crime in the future; and a number of other, very ugly, scenarios.

Check items #2, 7 and 12 on our list of characteristics of fascist regimes. Is it getting clear now?

The third article from Bianet expands on that part of the proposed law which establishes detention incommunicado, and includes comments on state interference between attorney and client, all of which comes from a lawyer with the Izmir Bar Association Prevention of Torture Group. The three main issues here are: The defendant is placed on a 24-hour ban from any contact with a lawyer; the lawyer cannot have a second lawyer present when taking a statement from the defendant; and the lawyer is banned from examining the contents of the defendant's file, nor can the lawyer make copies of the evidence.

In the fourth and, so far, final article which Bianet has prepared for us, we are told of the objections of a number of NGO's to the proposed anti-terror law and their focus is on what all of this will mean for the ordinary citizen. I think you really need to go and read this one, for two reasons. First, the main points are in bullet form, so they are easy to read--no wading through long paragraphs. Secondly, if you know anything about the Turkish regime, you will see that everything is poised to return to the bad old days. If you know nothing about the bad old days, by reading this, you will know what the rules of the game were. The regime has not moved anywhere near to democracy. Everything that has happened, to this point, in order to meet the Copenhagen Criteria, has been pure cosmetics, window-dressing, smoke-and-mirrors, and downright fantasy.

The good news is that all of this discussion is taking place among Turks, and Turkish human rights organizations. It's even taking place, to a certain degree, in the Turkish media, at least if you can get past the fascist paranoia which holds that the new anti-terror law would free Apo but protect Fethullah hodja. Of course, there is also Ilnur Cevik's paranoia that this anti-terror law is being designed specifically to go after Islamists. Yeah, right, as if . . . google Google News on the proposed law, and you'll get an idea of what I mean.

But there is something else, something even more skewed about the situation at this point, and that is that I have not seen any news or commentary from Europe about this charade of justice. This entire discussion of the new anti-terror law is taking place without any input from the Europeans. Why is that, I wonder? Could it be because the EU is not really concerned about Turkey's domestic situation? Could it be that the EU wholeheartedly wants to believe in the emperor's new clothing? Could this all be about economics and talk of human rights is merely the EU's window-dressing? Could it be that the reality is that Kurds will gain absolutely nothing, but more of the same, if Turkey ever does, finally, enter the EU?

Think about it. Who did the Europeans blame for the "provocations" of the Amed serhildan? They blamed Kurds, not the Ankara regime.

It's time that everyone, especially Kurds, stop seeing the EU as the fairy godmother, and start demanding answers of the EU, answers to some very hard questions, such as what, exactly, will be the position of Kurds when, or if, the fiasco known as EU accession actually comes to pass.

And if those answers are the wrong answers, if they don't satisfy the rights and the needs of the Kurdish people, then it's time to tell the EU to go to hell.