Final solution

Later time washed away his idealism, and his political ambitions carried him to Parliament and the office of minister of foreign affairs. Was it these posts or aging that made him a conservative first and -- I am sorry to say -- a reactionary later? I do not know. But please read what he wrote in his column in daily Cumhuriyet on the 17th and decide what else he has become.

Professor Soysal's article is titled “Final Solution.” Doesn't it sound like the terminology the Nazi leadership used with the Jews? What they understood of the final solution was the total annihilation of the Jews. Mr. Soysal's solution is no less vicious. He proposes a population exchange between Turkey's Kurds and the Turkmen of Iraq. This is no less than deportation. What an appropriate solution from a constitutional lawyer.

 Mr. Devlet Bahçeli, leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), is not much different in his reaction to the so-called initiative. He calls it treason and accuses the incumbent government of supporting the claims of the “separatists”. If you believe that this is just politicians' gibberish, don't fool yourselves. One of the comments sent to Mr. Soysal's column reads as follows: “This is the solution I have been advocating for so long. Finally someone has voiced it. Population exchange is the final solution. Let us gather all of the Kurds and send them to their Uncle Barzo [meaning Barzani] and let us hang Apo [Abdullah Öcalan, leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)]. … Turks and Kurds are not brothers.”

 Another commentary reads as follows: “Professor Mümtaz is telling the truth. In fact all of the Kurds that have dispersed throughout the country should be subjected to exchange. Then, there will be no terrorism problem left because it will not be internally supported.”

 Let us assume that there are not many people who think and feel so radically and bitterly. Yet there are enough people who have been drafted, motivated and sent to war against an “internal enemy” for two generations who can sabotage the government's initiative led by such columnists and party leaders such as Mr. Bahçeli and Mr. Deniz Baykal of the Republican People's Party (CHP). Both of these parties thrived on the state policy of discriminating against and oppressing Kurds. Kurds' search for recognition, equality and justice was denied as state policy. The CHP supported this policy as the founding party of the republic. The MHP supported it to protect and exalt ethnic Turks who were thought to dread Kurds as separatists and traitors in their quest for equal citizenship.

 In this context Ahmet Altan of the Taraf daily asks a thought-provoking question: “Why are only Kurds suspected of treason and irredentism but not a single Turk [possibly with the exception of those who want a righteous solution to this fratricide] is accused of such foul play?” This statement reveals a stark logic: This land belongs to the Turks and no one else. Only ethnic Turks can benefit from the rights and privileges of citizenship. Other people who have not been Turkified so far are looked upon as outsiders, inimical and potential traitors. This dangerous outlook was state policy.

 Every state disseminates its logic through education, law and daily policies. A state's instruments of ideology and coercion work incessantly towards this end. The end product is millions of people who have internalized the official mentality and worldview, whether it is discriminatory, racist or repressive. They hardly see whether such policies have brought freedom, democracy, affluence and peace to the country as long as they are not in the discriminated bunch or identity group. Yet such authoritarian and exclusive policies make everyone lose in the end. As long as there are provocateurs that help the illusion of a superior race or a primary ethnicity in a modern nation, which should never be built on the discriminatory premises of race and religion, a part of the population will feel like the owners of the state and the land. In fact they will pay the price of militarism, internal strife and the loss of revenues that could go to development and welfare instead of conflict prevention in a troubled country.

 Finally, the Turkish state seems to have given up its long-time discriminatory and repressive policies against Kurds. It is unfortunate that some groups and parties led by anachronistic demagogues are taking up the banner of ethnic confrontation and filling in the evacuated zone of internal strife. This is more dangerous than official policy because their methods and instruments tend to be less legitimate and ruthless than those of the state, which at least had to adhere to some kind of law and international standards.