The People’s Democratic Party (HDP) under Selahattin Demirtas recently held a two-day conference for members of the Kurdish political movement in Turkey under the umbrella of the Democratic Society Congress (DTK) and on December 27, 2015, they produced a 14-point unanimous declaration asking for some degree of state decentralization, allowing for some degree of autonomy or self-rule not only for the Kurds, but also for all Turkish regions, should they wish to implement it.
The autonomy/self-rule declaration created serious hysteria within the Turkish ruling establishment, resulting in lynching campaigns, threats, accusations and wild conspiracy theories rippling through the Turkish press. While this is not surprising in a nation whose leadership regularly engages in anti-democratic practices, little attention has been paid to the fact that the Kurdish call for autonomy is well within the scope of democratic limits, a peace plea for discussion of a political resolution. It’s certainly legitimate under international law and long overdue in light of the Kurdish people’s circumstances. Furthermore, the Kurdish declaration makes it clear that its proposal is subject to discussion and negotiation under the parliamentary roof, a catalyst intended to spur wider ongoing discussions on amendments to the country’s military-imposed constitution.
While the Turkish Constitution is designed to deny the Kurds any rights or basis for political participation, international law is clear that the internal self-determination of peoples is a legitimate right of every nation, one which the Kurds can equally claim as a codified human right. Notwithstanding accusations of treason by Mr. Erdogan and the Turkish media, in light of the very serious and systemic abuse the Kurds have historically been subjected to in that country, they are well within their rights to seek some form of self-determination. Instead of looking to Spain, which they do now, as a model in the pursuit of their collective democratic rights which makes it possible under a unitary form of state, the Kurds would have been well within their rights to pursue other options, for example one similar to the status of Quebec, as a distinct nation, within a Federal Canada.
As a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada found in their advisory opinion in Reference re Quebec, the sheer number of international conventions and resolutions confirming the right of self-determination is so extensive that it makes their enumeration impossible. Among the most significant are the U.N.'s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Declaration on Friendly Relations; Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, A/CONF.157/24, 25 June 1993; and the U.N. General Assembly's Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, GA Res. 50/6, 9 November 1995. The right has also been recognized in other international legal documents such as the Helsinki Final Act (part III).
In recent years, the International tribunals and Courts that have interpreted the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination have increasingly recognized the inalienable nature of this right that guarantees protection of fundamental freedoms. Exercise of the right of self-determination at the same time can form an effective instrument against racism and discrimination.
While leaders like Erdogan might counter that such declarations are trumped by the notion of Turkish sovereignty, the term “a people”, as referred to in international instruments, has been held by international tribunals and courts to mean not just the populations of an existing state, but also a portion of an existing state’s population in a number of circumstances. There is no dispute that Kurds qualify as such a “people” whose claim to self-determination is legally valid and broadly accepted, whether that be internal self-determination (autonomy) of “a people within an existing state" or external self-determination (secession) of a people from an existing state.
It is further recognized under international law that all peoples in an existing democratic state have a right of internal self-determination, one that is made possible within normal democratic practices. It is precisely the internal fulfilment of that internationally-guaranteed right of self-determination that properly informs the Kurdish political movement’s declaration, one which embraces the collective pursuit of political, cultural, linguistic, economic and social developments within the existing Turkish state and which does not seek to divide that state.
Hence, Erdogan’s and the Turkish establishment’s reaction to the declaration clearly flies in the face of well-recognized principles of international law that find internal self-determination cannot be denied in a democratic country governed by the rule of law. However, under circumstances in which the internal right of self-determination is denied to a people like the Kurds, who live in a country that claims to be a democracy, the same people will have the legitimate right to exercise external self-determination and secede. It does not therefore serve the interest of the Turkish state to seek to stifle a legitimate democratic practice in that country.
Further, oppression and marginalization aimed at preventing political participation by a people in an existing state can also legitimately trigger this right of secession, such an outcome is something that neither the Kurds nor the Turks appear to be seeking. That said, they may nonetheless find themselves confronted by just such a possibility if the Kurds, under today’s circumstances, continue to face the same systemic and brutal assimilation policies and practices they have historically been subjected to and if they continue to be unable to have some degree of autonomy over their collective pursuit of fundamental rights and developments. Few would argue that these are integral aspects of human integrity that form the basic principles of a democratic society.
Meeting the demand for internal self-determination will not just benefit the Kurds. Indeed, it would also help to finally unite the peoples of Turkey in their common struggle for justice and democracy. It would also help prevent authoritarian regimes and leaders from capitalizing on ultra-nationalist and racist sentiments that are ultimately divide-and-rule policies. Rallying Turkish nationalism against the Kurds is a customary historical practice in Turkey, one that has also been seized upon by Mr. Erdogan since 2002, perhaps most successfully of all his predecessors, as both a unifying and polarizing tool, depending on his needs of the day, that covers for restructuring the state administration and shifting ideological allegiance. It has also led the country to the edge of a full-fledged civil war that runs a serious risk of civilian massacres.
It is against this complex and dangerous backdrop that any semblance of Turkish democracy is on the line, with hopes for its survival predicated on the ability of Kurds and Turks alike uniting in their struggle for democracy, rejecting the divide-and-rule ultra-nationalism, and recognizing the inherent rights of the Kurdish people.
The author is a Kurdish human rights lawyer based in Toronto, Canada.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment