The other side of the coin: the growing opposition in turkey against to the european union accession

VI.2.1.2. The Kurdish Question
As a Turkish author, journalist, news anchor, and political commentator; Banu Avar wrote a book named “Hangi Avrupa?” (Which Europe?) that based on her documentaries which she prepared by using her interviews with prominent people from various sectors and foundations in Europe. Avar interviewed also with Patrick Devedjian, who is a French politician, close adviser of Nicolas Sarkozy and his ethnic origin is Armenian. By considering his ethnic origin Avar asked the prospective steps of Armenia in the future and “Je n’ai pas qualité pour parler au nom de l`état Arménie. Je suis citoyen Français. Je ne suis pas citoyen Arménie” answered Devedjian. (Translation to English: I am not qualified to speak on behalf of Armenia `s state. I am French citizen. I am not a citizen Armenia.) Then Avar continued by saying “but you would know”. Devedjian replied that “… Je ne peux pas parler pour Arménie. Je ne suis pas Arménien comme citoyen ... mais Je suis un Français, moi, Je suis un Français”. (Translation to English: I cannot speak for Armenia. I'm not Armenian as citizen ... but I'm a French, myself, I am a French.) ¹²⁰

Besides being an EU member state, France is a state where every citizens of France are accepted as French. As it can clearly be seen from the interview of Banu Avar with Patrick Devedjian; even though he is ethnically Armenian, Devedjian strongly emphasizes that he is French. His behaviour is understandable; because, in accordance with the French law, every citizens of France are French. In other words, it is illegal to collect data on ethnicity and ancestry. The situation was defined very clearly by Oppenheimer, “in France, where a central principle of republicanism is that the only legitimate identity in the public sphere is citizenship, it is unacceptable for a state agent to ask a person for her race or ethnicity … It is central to the French ideal of equality and citizenship that the state refrain from making distinctions based on race or ethnicity. The principle has its roots in the revolution of 1789 and the resulting Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. The most recent French Constitution adopted in 1958 carries forward this principle, banning all distinctions based on racial identity”.¹²¹

The reason why France is given as an example is because, besides being one of the most powerful countries in the EU, France has the similar principles in Turkey. These principles are also known as six fundamental principles of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk that also crates the basis of today’s main oppose party in Turkey, which was established by him, Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi (CHP – “Republican People’s Party”).¹²² These principles emphasize the unity of all Turkish citizens and homogeneous society without castes or privileges. Moreover, as it was explained by Villalta ¹²³ “The secularism of the state proves its tolerance in religions affairs, which it limits to the conscience of the individual. The State’s judgment is not disturbed by any dogma”.¹²⁴ During the establishment of the Republic, the constitutional law and the civic code; European sources were utilized that based the common political values and classical roots. For this reason, there is no difference between the European countries and Turkey in the case of implementation of identity. The citizens of the countries are known with the name of their countries; for example: Germany – German, France – French, Czech Republic – Czech, as same as, Republic of Turkey – Turkish.

One of the interviews of Avar was with Lord Russell-Johnston who is “the architect of Kurdish Report”¹²⁵ As well-known; Lord Russell-Johnston presented a report named the cultural situation of the Kurds to Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe, that he also introduced his suggestions. Avar asked him to explain one of his crucial suggestions to determine how many Kurds live in Turkey.

Lord Russell-Johnston, the Cultural Situation of the Kurds, Article A.4. and A.14.7 (July 7, 2006) :

“A. Draft Resolution

4. The number of Kurds is not known as none of the countries where they mainly live (namely Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey) include ethnicity in their population census. Estimates range from 25 to 30 million, making them one of the largest “stateless nations”.

14.7. paying particular attention to the correct registration of the Kurds at the next official census;”

Lord Russell-Johnston answered this question simply as people can define themselves. However, this is not simple in Turkey, especially, where the people are homogenous by coming from many different ethnic origins. There were and are many marriages from the different races and ethnic origin of the people. As a natural result, there are many people who were born with all ethnic differences. In this context, how those people can define themselves, in accordance of which ethnic origin. If an example should be given; imagine a person who has not only his/her parents from different ethnicity, but also grandparents. With reference to this ethical diversity how that person can declare himself/herself as from only one ethnic origin. Moreover; by trying to look from the point of view the children who are under 10 years old (e.g.), how they can give such a decision without knowing the meaning of ethnicity. Do they really have to make a choice between ethnic origins of their mother or father? If not, who will give a decision for them? Furthermore, what if some people do not know exactly what is their ethnic origin; what if they never needed to learn or they could not learn, so, what they can write for these people; what if some group of people are under pressure or force the other people to say how they wanted. These examples can be reproduced. On the other hand, instead of presenting forecasts and estimates, one can question that why all the EU member countries do not ask their people about their ethnic origin in their census that they can have exact numbers of each ethnicities for their countries that can also present a good example to show the way to Turkey.
The Kurdish question is not limited only with the definition of terminologies or separation of national identity of Turkey; but also decentralization of the territory. Prof. Manisalı points out that since 1990s the Kurdish question constantly on the agenda of the EU that it is easy to find almost in all European Parliament resolutions and regular reports from the European Commission on Turkey by emphasizing some parts of the documents from different years.¹²⁶ 2000 Regular Report from the Commission on Turkey’s progress towards accession can give as an example of one of these.
2000 Regular Report from the Commission on Turkey’s Progress towards Accession¹²⁷ (8 November 2000)

“There has been no particular change at the level of regional and local administration. Control by the central administration over local government remains strong. The draft law on local government, which is aiming at further decentralisation and is currently under discussion among Ministries, remains to be adopted.”

In accordance with the Treaty of Sèvres, there was a plan to create a Kurdish country under the name of Kurdistan; when the treaty was disapproved, the plan was removed. However, it is questions if the western countries were really given up from their targets to create this plan. The former British Labour Party politician, Tony Benn emphasized that the west, which had been seen the Soviets as a threat, made a balanced policy with Turkey to do no offend it, therefore they gave up from this target.¹²⁸ Furthermore, the chief editorial writer and a columnist at The Independent, Mary Dejevsky specified that the borders of the countries can change by giving example from Kurdistan that hard to band together its pieces from Eastern Turkey, from Syria, Iran and Iraq.¹²⁹
In this context, it is necessary to indicate what they mean Kurdistan. ".. In the old Ottoman Kurdistan, the inhabitant were generally known as Kurds, when there was in fact an indisputable racial majority of Turks in its Anatolian part, and if the latter called themselves Kurds it was because they came from the region called Kurdistan. ..."¹³⁰ This information should be taken into consideration from the scholars and people when they are speaking about ethnic originality of that area. Even today, Kurds are not alone in the area. There are many other ethnic origins as well as Turkish. For this reason, nobody can proclaim that the South-eastern area of Turkey is only belongs to Kurds.
In this context, it was also stated before as well that the demands from Turkey with regard to EU accession are redolent of an image as EU tries to divide Republic of Turkey by homogenous feature of Turkish population. Demands or suggestions of the EU, especially, about decentralization of Turkey in accordance of some areas are caused to support this image which was already formed by people who are against to the EU accession of Turkey. The Kurdish Question is one of the hardest and deepest issues as well as all the questions of ethnic origins regardless the countries. Therefore, such issues should be considered more carefully and sensitively to avoid any chaos that may occur in the future.
On the other hand, recently, there are several thoughts and intentions about a federal system in Turkey, even though its possibility is very disputable. “Recalling that the Ottoman Empire was a state founded on a federal system, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan suggested that implementation of a federal system might come onto the agenda as of 2023, the centennial anniversary of the foundation of the Republic of Turkey.”¹³¹ With this regard, it is important to evaluate how the people in Turkey will response the statement of the Turkish Prime Minister as well as the prospective statements or declarations from the parliament members, prominent scholars, intellectuals and Turkish citizens. Thoroughly examination and analysis the positive as well as the negative approaches of the people to statements are crucial to understand or estimate the future of Turkey and the reactions to the EU that may occur in the future.