kurdish troubles (8 posts)

1. kurdish troubles
Tue, Feb 16, 1999 - 5:07 PM/EST
eireann

any reactions to the capture and extradition to turkey of the PKK leader (i'm not even going to attempt to spell his name - anyone have quick access to a newspaper and can check it?) yesterday in kenya? i find it fascinating the kurds were able to mobilise such massive demonstrations in so many different cities in such a short time. i wonder if they just have an amazing network or if they've been expecting this for some time now?

anyone with opinions on this matter?

2. Opinions?
Tue, Feb 16, 1999 - 5:33 PM/EST
JimP

Don't we always have opinions?

As I listened to the reports of the Kurds response to the extradition of the Kurdish rebel leader,
Abdullah Ocalan (I copied the name from the web), I too wondered how they could mount such a coordinated effort. All went to Greek embassy buildings. It seems to me that if there weren't some coordinator, some other response would have occurred. But, that's called a conspiracy syndrome by some,(seeing a conspiracy in every normal action).

There seems that something is going on that I, at least, am not aware of. Getting into the conspiracy theory, I wonder if this effort is an advertisement to the west. Could there be a government, or other type leader, that is telling the West "Look what I can do in such a short time. Pay attention to my demands."

It is also interesting that ben Laden (sp?), the leader who was until recently harbored in Afghanistan, and who allegedly masterminded the bombing of our embassies, left Afghanistan, was reported to meet with Saddam, and now no one (No One?) knows where he is.

Conspiracies can seen in many places, but are much less real than many imagine. Robert Ludlum has made a nice living writing conspiracy theory books.

Still, I have to wonder at the timing of all this, and to be a little anxious as I wait for the next revealing new report.

Regards,

Jim

3. Conspiracy vs unity vs dandelions
Wed, Feb 17, 1999 - 5:53 AM/EST
FelixG

I know nothing of the Kurds these days, but did have a professional interest in the mid seventies.

If nothing has changed in the last 20 or so years, the Kurds (like other dispersed groups who see themselves as nationalities) have a strongly bound and developed C3 and action system analogous to government. They also have a strongly developed nationalist consciousness which leds to community of thinking regardless of geography - once again, analogous to national mindset. Just as JimP and I found ourselves thinking like US and European models in another place, despite seeing ourselves as partially dissident individuals, so a member of a diaspora will in many ways think as such in certain threatening circumstances.
This is often callled "dandelion effect". Dandelion seeds float off in a million directions on the winds of the day to a million destinations. They then lie dormant, until a day when the circumstances are right for them all to burst into idential life. Similarly, ideas float unformed in a dispersed community until a set of circumstances brings them to surface action in a variety of locations.

Nothing sinister, I think - or at least, no more sinister than our own behaviours, our own socialpsychologiesand pathologies, or the existence of more conventional governments.

I am, I hasten to add, expressing neither support for nor opposition to Kurdish aspirations.

4. Kkurdish spirations?
Wed, Feb 17, 1999 - 11:14 AM/EST
McRostie

The Kurds, for a fairly widely dispersed group are, as Felix says, of the strong mind that they are, and should formally be a national group. This idea causes great pain in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, all of which have signigicant Kurdish populations.

A couple of years ago, I spent a fascinating evening in Turkey talking with a hotel manager on a galcony ovewrlooking the Mediteranean. As an aside, go there if you ever have the chance. It's inexpensive and quite fascinating

We talked, among many other things, about the "problems" in Eastern Turkey where US nationals are not encouraged to go. Whether he was right or not I don't know, but in his opinion, all the national government in Ankara had to do to ameliorate the difficulties was use a small part of its government largese in the Kurdish areas to turn them into peaceful Turks. His view seemed to be that the problem was of "racist" origins compounded with an economic overlay.

Felix's "dandelion theory" is interesting. I'm more inclined to see concerted action which one can call a conspiracy only when one is on the other side. I rather suspect the Kurds call it patriotism.

Regards, McRostie

PS I note that eireann started this thread. Keep it up eireann. The world needs more of you. That graduate school needs you, and will benefit from you.

5. The broken record
Wed, Feb 17, 1999 - 4:36 PM/EST
JimP

I know I am beginning to sound like one.

I just read the news reports on MSNBC about this kurdish incident. Immediately, I am struck by a similarity in the problems in Kosovo, Indonesia, and Turkey. Each of these nations considers the problem to be internal terrorists. In Kosovo, the EU and NATO are intervening to impose a cease fire, with outside forces enforcing it. In Indonesia and East Timur, to date its simmering along without much interest, at least yet. In Turkey and the kurds, the US backs Turkey and declares the PPK to be terrorists. There are rumors that the US urged Greece to give up Ocalan, and even that Israel provided backing in his seizure in Nairobi. These last two are rumor only, I hasten to add.

I may be dense, but I simply do not see the differences. It seems to me that the US has arbitrarily decided that it's OK for Turkey to put down a rebellion of kurds, calling them terrorists, and it is not OK for Milosovich to do the same in Kosovo. What criteria were used to do so?

What distinguishes a terrorist from a revolutionary attempting to gain independence? Were Patrick Henry, George Washington, etc. revolutionaries, or terrorists? Is it through which set of paradigms you happen to be viewing the events?

Regards, Jim

6. revolutionaries or terrorists?
Wed, Feb 17, 1999 - 5:24 PM/EST
eireann

this question absolutely fascinates me, to a point much larger than this form allows (ie: my undergrad thesis). the one point i'll make here actually is in reference to jim's report that he heard there were rumors the US may have "urged" greece to give up ocalan. granted, i guess this is still rumor, but it wouldn't surprise me much... anyway, if we did urge greece to give him up, we did it because we see kurds as terrorists in turkey, eh? (may i add a little sidebar here that most of our planes flying into iraq now are lifting off from our airbase in turkey)

what about in iraq? same ethnicity. there we refer to them as martyrs - the ethnic enclave that wants little more than to live according to their own cultural traditions up in northern iraq, and then saddam hussein goes and gasses them all. we hold up saddam's action as an atrocity, a crime against humanity. i've even seen it referred to as genocide.

so in iraq, our enemy, the kurds are martyrs. in turkey, our precarious ally (at least at the moment), they're terrorists.

now i get it.

7. one other little thing
Wed, Feb 17, 1999 - 5:28 PM/EST
eireann

when i see how well the kurds have coordinated these demonstrations across europe, i can't help but think of the iranian revolution...

maybe it's just me, but there are similarities.

-eireann

8. Consistency?
Wed, Feb 17, 1999 - 7:18 PM/EST
McRostie

Jim and eireann, you both seem to be having great difficulty with the apparently inconsistent positions our government takes in the Balkans, Timur and the Kurdish areas in the Middle East. I do too, but I also recognize that while the situations are the same, they are not identical and therefore do not necessarilly call for identical responses.

If you want consistency, it seems you have only two choices. Either you assist all ethnic, racial or "misguided" groups seeking independence from a sovereign state, or, you support the state withholding independence. Either approach has its disadvantages so we do the best we can in the light of history and the problems of a political reality.

Iraq, rightly or wrongly, is perceived to be a threat. Considering its willingness to use unorthodox weaponry, it probably is. Ergo, we support anyone militating against it, up to and including our arch-enemy, Iran. EXCEPT, for the Iraqi Kurds who spill over into and disrupt our strong anti-Iraqi friend Turkey. Those Kurds, to use an old phrase, we'll let twist slowly in the wind while we fry more "important" fish in the Balkans. How's that for mixing metaphors?

Timur being a part of that non-country, Indonesia poses a minor problem to us today. The problems of Indomesia are hugh as is the country because of its geographical makeup, all islands some of which are pretty big and some pretty small. I frankly am not at all certain as to what the fascination of Indomesia is with Timur. There is oil in the general area, but little I believe in Timur to date. I'm guessing, I'll admit, but I think it may be more a matter of saving face than anything else.

As a closing thought, while we're being consistent in how we treat these "freedom" movements, how should we react to Quebec? They're pretty close to home. So, another fine dilemma we've gotten into.

Regards, McRostie