The Kurdish question
loomed large in NATO’s meeting last month in Madrid. The headlines focused on
Turkey’s objection to Sweden and Finland joining the military alliance while
Ankara’s long-standing concern about Kurdish separatists was an unspoken
elephant in the room.
اضافة اعلان
Turkey has long
claimed that Sweden and Finland harbor Kurdish militants along with other
high-profile opponents of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government. This
frustration looks like it will remain a contentious issue in future relations
between Turkey and NATO.
Erdogan made a
triumphant return to Ankara from the summit, having wrestled the desired
concessions from Sweden and Finland on the matter of curbing the activities of
the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been labeled a terrorist
organization by the EU, US, and UK.
Since the summit,
Swedish and Finnish lawmakers have faced backlash from political opponents,
mainly from those on the left. In Sweden, the Green Party and the Left Party
warned against the risks of allying with Turkey.
Turkey is
demanding the extradition from Sweden of more than 70 people it describes as
terrorists. In early July, members of the Left Party posed with flags from the
PKK, as well as its Syrian offshoot YPG, which has received arms in the fight
against Daesh from Western countries such as the US.
Although
left-wing MPs have historically shown some sympathy to the group, the latest
incident, which took place during a political meeting on the island of Gotland,
was designed to call attention to the summit. Although the Left Party is not in
government, it helps prop up the Social Democrat Cabinet. Sweden’s Prime
Minister Magdalena Andersson condemned the images, saying “posing with such
flags is extremely inappropriate”.
The domestic
implications of what was arguably a foreign policy win will continue to play
out over the coming months in Turkey. Erdogan has his own challenges at home
ahead of next year’s presidential and parliamentary elections, coinciding with
the centennial anniversary of the founding of the Turkish Republic in 1923.
Kurdish voters have been a significant block in previous polls. In the past,
their votes have swayed tight elections.
While Turkey
might have gained ground on the international dimensions of its fight against
Kurdish separatists at the NATO summit, there are still profound challenges in
the domestic dynamics of the Kurdish question that will gain fresh urgency in
the next election cycle.
Just look at the
pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democracy Party (HDP). From his prison cell in the western
city of Edirne, jailed former head of the HDP Selahattin Demirtas wrote a
passionate letter stating that politics and violence cannot go together.
Demirtas was imprisoned on charges of support for terrorism following an urban
guerrilla insurgency orchestrated by the PKK and its affiliates in the summer
of 2016 in parts of southeastern Turkey.
In the letter
published on July 1 in the pro-Kurdish daily Yeni Yasam, which is banned in
Turkey, Demirtas called for “change”, urging Turkey’s opposition parties to
find new paths to unite in a joint effort against Erdogan’s governing Justice
and Development Party . He also called on his own party to embrace Turkey and
seek an honorable peace within the unity of the country. His words were a clear
call for the Kurdish opposition to act like an autonomous political party, free
from external interference by PKK militants based in the Qandil mountains in
northern Iraq.
However, it is
unclear how far the plea will resonate within the wider Kurdish movement, which
has been angered by the events at the Madrid summit. Whether the Kurds can
separate legitimate demands for political rights and continued armed insurgency
will determine the fate of future generations of Kurdish people in Turkey and
across the Middle East.
Time could be
limited as Turkey moves to ban Kurdish political parties. Turkey’s
Constitutional Court will review a case seeking to ban the HDP — the third
largest party in parliament, with a mandate of 12 percent of national voters —
on grounds of its links to terrorism. Two-thirds of the court’s members are
required to agree on a decision, however, it is not yet clear when the review
will take place. In April, the HDP submitted its defense to the Constitutional
Court, repudiating the charges.
A ban ahead of
next year’s elections would unfairly silence millions of pro-peace Kurdish
voices and play directly into the hands of PKK fighters spoiling for armed
violence against Turkish targets. It would also jeopardize dying hopes for
Turkey’s EU ascension bid. But the HDP cannot continue its rights struggle
within Turkey’s political system while refusing to sever its ties with a
proscribed terrorist organization. No other NATO member would accept such a
situation.
Having wrestled
written commitments from Sweden and Finland, Turkey may believe it has the
upper hand in the battle with Kurdish militants and can afford to take
reconciliatory steps toward the Kurds in Turkey. There may be an opportunity
here for restarting dialogue, which has been frozen since the resurgence of
violence six years ago.
Things could
change in Turkey’s international approach to the Kurdish issue if Sweden and
Finland fail to uphold their commitments agreed to in Madrid. As such, this
issue is bound to hang over NATO. The view in Ankara is that the accession
process has only just begun, meaning that the standoff between Turkey and NATO
may not yet be resolved.
Burcu Ozcelik is a research fellow at the Henry Jackson
Society, the international think tank. She holds a PhD from the University of
Cambridge. Twitter: @BurcuAOzcelik. Syndication Bureau.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
