However it is not certain what kind of solution these operations will bring to the Kurdish question. Undoubtedly, the importance of the military dimension of this problem, which has persisted since 1984, cannot be ignored. A state is, of course, obliged to maintain security and safety for its citizens. But if a threat emerged, it would be a colossal mistake to resort to military options alone to address the problem. It can be said that the Kurdish question in Turkey has remained unresolved simply because it has been perceived as a mere terror issue. Because the real motives behind the issue are not dealt with, only security measures gain prominence in the struggle to resolve the issue.A country has scientists, scholars and experts committed to the identification of problems. Politics may be considered successful if it ensures mobilization of the influential actors in a country to resolve the identified problems. When the resolution of a problem is sought in narrowly defined paradigms, it will not be possible to comprehend the details of that problem. This is the major mistake in Turkey when addressing the Kurdish issue.
However, we have recently witnessed a promising development. Retired generals admitted that they made mistakes in regard to the Kurdish question. Some media organs referred to their remarks as confessions. A number of influential players stated these confessions, including the leader of the 1980 coup, Kenan Evren, former Chief of General Staff Gen. K Hilmi Özkök, his predecessor, İsmail Hakkı Karadayı, former Air Forces Commander Gen. Faruk Cömert, former Land Forces Commander Gen. Aytaç Yalman and former National Intelligence Agency (MİT) Deputy Undersecretary Cevat Öneş. The retired generals expressed self-criticisms on the methods pursued so far, further admitting that their actions had caused the issue to deteriorate. Yalman, who made reference to the first years of the issue, which was then in its infancy, drew attention to the mistakes made when the state follows a policy of denial: “People in the region want to speak their language and live their culture. However, we have been trained that there is no such thing as Kurd. … We have considered social activities to be destructive actions.” Evren also admits his mistakes. He criticized the ban on the Kurdish language and the tortures at Diyarbakır Prison, saying: “Civil servants appointed to the region should be able to speak the Kurdish language. Harsh measures would not work out.” (Zaman, Nov. 8, 2007).
Maybe these remarks should be taken as self-criticism instead of confessions. Of course, the self-criticism is pretty valuable. The first thing that crosses one’s mind when reading these remarks: “These self-criticisms are very important; but we wish we did not have to experience the sorrow and had done what needed to be done in the first place.”
The whole thing is about recognition of the identity of a group of human beings -- a people, tribe or ethnic group, whatever they will be called -- and accepting them as they are. This will, of course, entail the establishment of a system based on the rule of law under which all will have the opportunity to enjoy speaking their own language. Recognition of the right to speak native languages is not an obstacle to the recognition of Turkish as the country’s official language.
Yes; the issue is less than simple, indeed. This self-criticism is being made, but old habits still dominate the current approaches to the issue. The first lesson that should be drawn from this is to limit the domain of the security forces to security issues only and to keep the military out of political matters.
