Four Kurdish political parties condemn the closing down of the DTP

admin — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:21:49 +0000

In a joint statement four Kurdish political parties from Iranian Kurdistan condemned the closing down of the DTP by a Turkish court.

In the statement, the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, Komala Party – Iranian Kurdistan, Kurdistan Freedom Party and the Organization of Iranian Kurdistan’s Struggle, expresses grave concern about the closing down of the DTP and warns that this action could have dire consequences on the relationship between the Kurdish people and Turkey.

At the same time the four parties hope that both the Kurdish people DTP and the Turkish government will still push for an democratic opening to the Kurdish issue in Turkey. The four parties writhe that “we hope that our Kurdish brothers and sisters and the government of Turkey can work together to overcome these obstacles so that the political and democratic process continues.”

Turkey’s ban of the DTP and the Kurdish peoples natural response

admin — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 06:52:45 +0000

A Turkish Constitutional Court voted unanimously to ban the Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP). The ruling comes despite a warning from the European Union that outlawing the DTP would violate Kurdish rights.

The ruling will only bring about more tension between the Kurdish people and the Turkish state; a natural response will be that the Kurdish people will lose all hope in a peaceful solution to the conflict. As long as the Kurdish people are not looked upon as equal partners the conflict will continue, with the possibility of even more violence than before.

This ruling is truly a tragic decision that, if not overturned, will have a crippling effect on Kurdish-Turkish relations for an indefinite future. It is not the first time Turkey banns a Kurdish party, and the conflict always worsens after every such decision.

Large group of Turkish police beat a Kurdish man

yüksekova haber gever gergin
by erkancapraz

Q&A about nuclear talks with Iran, the events in Balochistan and the Kurdish-Turkish conflict

admin — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:43:10 +0000

I receive different questions about a vide range of issues related to the situation in the Middle East on a daily basis via emails, phone calls and in discussion with people in different meetings. I will from now on answer some of those questions here on the blog. If you have any questions you would like to be raised here on the blog you can send them to loghman.ahmedi@pdki.org

Below are some questions that I have received during the last two weeks:

Q: The U.S. has intensified its efforts to solve the nuclear crises with Iran and, as it seems by media reports, Iran has responded positively. Do you think that the outcome of the negotiations will be positive?

A: Our party has welcomed the efforts by the U.S. and other countries to solve their conflict with Iran through dialogue. We have this position partly due to the fact that we think that conflicts should be solved politically, and partly because this new approach has pushed the regime in Tehran in to a corner.

However, the likelihood of Iran agreeing to halt its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons altogether is very low. This is the case despite the fact that Iran is taking part in the negotiations with P5+1. Iran has its own reasons to negotiate that have nothing to do with its willingness to halt its nuclear program.

There are several explanations for why Iran is taking part in these negotiations. One explanation is naturally that the regime would like to prevent new sanctions. Another explanation is that the regime fears that it could push China and Russia closer to the U.S. if it doesn’t take any steps that would give the Russians and Chinese a pretext to refuse to go along with any hard line against Iran. A third explanation, and the most reasonable one, is that the regime is attempting to defuse internal tensions by preventing the Western powers to lend support its opposition; negotiations is a perfect opportunity to shift both domestic and international focus away from the internal conflicts.

As for the possibility of the negotiations leading to a “positive” outcome, it all depends on what we appraise as a positive outcome. Is it a positive outcome if Iran, hypothetically, agrees to send a large portion of its uranium to Russia and France to be enriched? The natural question that arises is: who will be able to prevent Iran from continuing to secretly develop its nuclear program when it feels strong enough to do so? Even if we disregard this risk, it is highly unlikely that the negotiations will stop Iran from expanding its role as a regional power by waging proxy wars through different terrorist groups. Furthermore, Iran has studied the negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea, and they have learnt all of the tricks to buy time and prolong negotiations. A resent sign of this is Iran’s sudden objection to France being part of the negotiations.

The West needs to realize that the Islamic Republic derives the justification for its existence from an antagonistic and conflictual relationship with the U.S. and the West. The regime needs to portray the U.S. and Israel as external enemies. For that reason, it cannot develop normal relations with the international community.

Iran fears, above all, two things. The first is a military attack, which is highly improbable. The second thing, and its greatest fear, is that the West empowers and supports the democratic and secular opposition, which would lead to an end of the regime. Other “problems” are seen by the regime as only small obstacles to its quest for regional supremacy.

Q: Do you think that the Kurdish initiative in Turkey will bring about peace and what is the PDKI’s position on the matter?

A: Our party has expressed cautious optimism about recent developments in Turkey with regard to the Kurdish issue. The mere fact that the current government in Turkey has presented what they now call the “Democratic initiative” (which they called the Kurdish initiative at first) is in itself a positive move. But whether this initiative will lead to peace depends on several factors, and no one should expect peace to be achieved over night.

First and foremost the Turkish government needs to prepare the Turkish public for the necessary compromises that needs to be made for peace to be possible. One important point in this regard is to change the mentality of large parts of the Turkish people regarding their perception of the Kurdish people and the Kurdish political parties, especially the PKK (which is the dominant party in the Turkish part of Kurdistan.) Successive Turkish governments have worked hard to make “terrorism” synonymous with organized struggle for Kurdish rights.

Changing attitudes like these will be hard but pivotal to achieve lasting peace and a just settlement. Furthermore, the Turkish government needs to accept the Kurdish political parties as their counterpart and take their demands seriously and be ready to make necessary compromises.

I believe that the Kurdish political parties, especially the PKK, have shown that they are ready to end this conflict and that they are ready to make compromises. It is now up to the government of Turkey to respond in an appropriate manner and resist the pressure from radical nationalist groups. These groups, if given to much space, will endanger the long-term interests of Turkey. And the Kurdish nation, in all parts of Kurdistan, follows the developments in Turkey and is expecting democratic change and peace.

Q: Following the killing of several Revolutionary Guard members by Jundullah, Western media outlets have written about the situation in Sistan- Balouchistan. Does an ethnic conflict exist in Iran or is it a conflict between Sunnis a Shiites?

A: One cannot speak of the existence of “ethnic conflict” in Iran in the sense that the country’s national and religious groups are antagonistic toward each other as in some other parts of the world where there are “ethnic conflicts.” However, in spite of the fact that Iran is a multinational country, one ethnic group or nation, the Persians, are privileged in the sense that only the Persian language is the official language of the country, only Persian history is thought in the schools and their religion is state religion etc.

At the same time, Kurds, Arabs, Turks, Baluchs and so on are discriminated and systematically oppressed by the state. So the Islamic Republic is actually engaged in undeclared “ethnic conflicts” with Iran’s non-Persian nations and religious groups. For example, Jundullah said in a statement that the bombing attack against the Revolutionary Guards was a response to the “crimes of the Iranian regime against the Baluchi people; the unarmed and oppressed, who everyday loses a number of its children to the crimes of this regime, which just during the last year murdered hundreds of young [Baluchi] men […] These crimes left the Baluchi people no other choice except resistance and to use the same methods as the Iranian regime.”

Thus, the incident in Baluchistan is a result of the policies that the Islamic Republic pursues against Iran’s different nations and religious groups. Our party believes that Iran’s nations and religious groups don’t have “conflicts” with each other. However, the Islamic regime is systematically working to bring about “ethnic conflicts” in Iran. Even if the regime succeeds in creating ethnic conflicts in Iran, we believe that the only solution to such conflicts is democracy and federal arrangements, not war.

Loghman H. Ahmedi » Turkey

Four Kurdish political parties condemn the closing down of the DTP

Turkey’s ban of the DTP and the Kurdish peoples natural response

Q&A about nuclear talks with Iran, the events in Balochistan and the Kurdish-Turkish conflict

The Sick man of Europe and its paranoia