Defining Turkey's Kurdish Question
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Defining Turkey’s Kurdish Question: Discourse in the US Congress, The European Parliament and the Turkish Grand National Assembly, 1990-99 Hamid Akın Ünver A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Government University of Essex Date of submission November 2009 Winner 2010 Malcolm H. Kerr Award for the Best Dissertation in the Field of Social Sciences This Dissertation is Nominated by the University of Essex, Department of Government for the Following ECPR Categories The 2010 Jean Blondel PhD Prize for the Best Dissertation by a Scholar in an ECPR Member Institution. The 2010 Stein Rokkan Prize for Comparative Social Science Research Defining the Kurdish Question: Discourse in the US Congress, The European Parliament and The Turkish Grand National Assembly. Chapter 1 -- Defining the Kurdish question: Setting the Scene 1. Power, function and policy asymmetries: The US Congress, the EU Parliament and the Turkish Grand National Assembly……………………………………..…7 2. On the methodology of this work………………………………………………..11 2.1 Methodology step 1: Data collection………………………………………..…...14 2.2 Methodology step 2: Data evaluation……………………………………………16 Chapter 2 – Theoretical overview: The State, the non-State and political language 1. Philosophical aspects: The consciousness of the State and of the non- State.…………………………………………………………………………...…22 1.1 The State and power in politics: Machiavelli – Hobbes – Weber …………….23 1.2 Language of the ‘non-State’ and emancipation: Locke – Rousseau – Kant....31 2. Theoretical aspects: How does the consciousness of the State and emancipation materialize in politics? Enter discourse analysis………………………………...35 2.1 Limitation of the literature on ‘psychological factors’ in foreign policy…….36 2.2 When words establish power relations: Critical discourse analysis and identity conflicts…………………………………………………………………..……...40 2.3 On the methodology of the content chapters: The relationship between speech- act and discourse…………………………………………………………………………43 3. Operational-methodological aspects: How does discourse affect policy? Agenda- setting, policy-advertising, ‘non-decision’ and indirect effects of speech on the wider discourse on the Kurdish conflict………………………………………....46 3.1 Discourse and ‘non-decision’: How the hegemonic discourse marginalizes counter-hegemonic discourses in the wider Kurdish conflict……………………...51 4. Summary: Interactions between discourse, agenda-setting and non-decision: How does the above discussion fit into the thesis’ empirical work?………………….54 Chapter 3 – EU Parliament discourse on the Kurdish question in Turkey 1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………..63 2. Types of discourses adopted in the European Parliament debates regarding the Kurdish question in Turkey ….. ………………………………………………...69 2.1 Human rights discourse ……………………………………………………………69 2.2 Democracy/democratization discourse………………………………………..…82 2.3 Excessive force ……………………………………………………………………...88 2.4 Ethnic conflict/peace process/identity/autonomy ………………………………95 2.5 Role of the military …………………………………………………………………98 2.6 Discourses that converge with that of the Turkish state …………………….101 3. Discourses adopted by the members of the European Commission and Council of Europe……………………………………………………………….………….106 4. Discourses of intra-EP criticism …………………………………….………... 113 5. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………..120 5.1 How did discourse affect policy in the EP with regard to the Kurdish question?..............................................................................................................124 Chapter 4 – US Congress discourse on the Kurdish question in Turkey 1. Introduction …………………………………………………………………….126 2. Types of discourses adopted in the US Congress on the Kurdish question in Turkey ………………………………………………………………………….131 2.1 Human rights discourse …………………………………………………………..131 2.2 Democracy/democratization discourse …………………………………………141 2.3 Excessive force …………………………………………………………………….148 2.4 Identity/autonomy/cultural rights ……………………………………………….153 2.5 Discourses that converged with that of the Turkish state…………………….158 3. Discourses of the State Department, Department of Defense and US military………………………………………………………………………….160 4. Discourses of intra-US criticism………………………………………………..166 5. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………..170 5.1 How did discourse affect policy in the Congress with regard to the Kurdish question?..............................................................................................................176 Chapter 5 – Turkish Grand National Assembly discourse on the Kurdish question 1. Introduction ….. ……………………………………………………………….179 2. Types of discourses adopted by the parliamentarians in the Turkish Grand National Assembly …………………………………………………………….184 2.1 Human rights discourse ………………………………………………………… 184 2.2 Democracy/democratization …………………………………………………….192 2.3 Excessive force ……………………………………………………………………200 2.4 Security discourse …………………………………………………………………206 2.5 Economic-developmental discourses……………………………………………209 2.6 Legalistic discourses………………………………………………………………213 2.7 Autonomy-ethnicity-culturalist discourses……………………………………..217 3. Discourses of intra-Turkish criticism ………………………………………….221 4. Criticism of the US, EU and other foreign entities: the ‘dark powers’ discourse..............................................................................................................227 5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...234 5.1 How did discourse affect policy in the TGNA with regard to the Kurdish question?..............................................................................................................240 Chapter 6 – Analysis: Impact of ideology and agenda on legislative perceptions of the Kurdish question 1. The European Parliament ………………………………………………………247 1.1 Agenda: country-affiliation ………………………………………………...........247 1.2 Ideology: group activity …………………………………………………………..254 2. The United States Congress ……………………………………………………260 2.1 Ideology: Democrats vs. Republicans ……………………………………….....260 2.2 Agenda: caucus affiliation …………………………………………………….…265 3. Turkish Grand National Assembly …………………………………………….274 3.1 Ideology: party-affiliation ………………………………………………………..275 3.2 Agenda: constituency …………………………………………………………..…282 3.3 Continuity and change in Turkish state/government discourse………………284 3.3.1 Security discourse………………………………………………………...285 3.3.2 Educational-developmental discourse …………………………………289 4. Comparative analysis of the European Parliament, US Congress and TGNA…………………………………………………………………………..295 Chapter 7 – Conclusion: Connecting the findings with the theory 1. Concluding Summary ………………………………………………………….303 2. The significance of this study…………………………………………………..313 3. Epilogue………………………………………………………………………...314 Bibliography Appendix 1 CHAPTER 1 Defining the Kurdish Question: Setting the Scene Kurdish question, without doubt, is one of the most complicated and protracted issues of the Middle East and the Caucasus. Although Kurdish people span across three other neighboring countries – Iran, Syria and Iraq – the great majority of the Kurds live in Turkey1, rendering the country with a unique position in the larger Kurdish conundrum. The real difficulty in Turkey in addressing this question comes from the existence of competing and mutually exclusive definitions of this problem, each associated with a corresponding belief on how this issue can be solved. Ironically however, calling the Kurdish question as the ‘Kurdish question’ itself is regarded as an ideological position by the Turkish state.2 For example if one says that there is a 'Kurdish problem' in Turkey, it is – often misleadingly – inferred that s/he believes in the cultural and ethnic separateness of the Kurds which is – mostly misleadingly – inferred as ‘supporting’ Kurdish separatism. On the other hand, if one says that 'there is no Kurdish problem’, s/he is then 1 A controversial issue in and of itself, providing the exact number of Kurds in Turkey is difficult due to various political reasons. For a long time, the Turkish government did not make any specific Kurdish population census, since the official position did not emphasize ethno-linguistic differences in Turkey, asserting the supra-identity of Turkish-ness. The most recent official move to come up with an approximate number of Kurdish citizens was the directive by the National Security Council of Turkey dubbed as ‘The Report on the Distribution of the Ethnic Groups in Turkey’ in June 2008. According to the report, the approximate aggregate of the Kurdish people in Turkey – including Krmanji, Zazaki and Gorani Kurds – was 12 million 600 thousand. However, the report also highlighted that around 2 million Kurds ‘did not accept their ethnic heritage’ as a result of assimilation policies and identified themselves as ‘Turks’. The report itself is confidential, but some parts of it were leaked to the media. More on this can be found in the Turkish newspaper Milliyet’s online edition: Milliyet (June 6, 2008) ‘Türkiye’deki Kürtlerin Sayısı’ [The Number of the Kurds in Turkey] retrieved February 16, 2009 from <http://www.milliyet.com.tr/default.aspx?aType=SonDakika&ArticleID=873452> 2 See for example the statement made by the then chief coordinator for anti-terrorism, retired general Edip Başer: ‘There is no Turk-Kurd problem’, adding that only Western countries call the terror problem as the ‘Kurdish question’. More on this can be found at CNN-Turk online edition: CNN-Turk (June 9, 2007) ‘Başer: Türk-Kürt sorunu yoktur’ [Baser: There is no Turk-Kurd problem]