Turkey’s resistance to any kind of peace process is mainly because of its use of the conflict with the Kurds as a justification for its continued hostility and aggression, said David L. Philips, director of the Peace-Building and Human Rights Program at Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights.
In a recent interview with Erem Kansoy of Medya Haber TV, Philips, who is also a former Senior Adviser and Foreign Affairs Expert to the State Department during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, offered a critical perspective on the treatment of Kurds over the past century, highlighting instances of betrayal and neglect.
Philips began with historical events, citing the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, which made no reference to Kurds or Kurdistan, as the starting point for the challenges facing the Kurdish population. He noted that this trend continued in 1975 with the Algiers Agreement, which he said compromised Kurdish interests.
Despite several unilateral ceasefires declared by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Philips argued that it has been difficult to initiate a political dialogue to address the Kurdish question. He proposed a broader political process, including dialogue, as a means of removing the PKK from the list of foreign terrorist organisations maintained by the US and other Western countries.
Philips argued that the PKK should not be labelled a terrorist organisation, stressing that the Kurds pose no threat to the regimes in Ankara or Damascus. He criticised Turkey for resisting peace processes, suggesting that the ongoing conflict with the Kurds serves as a justification for Ankara’s hostility and aggression.
The expert called on the Kurds to clearly articulate their goals, in particular the meaning of democratic federalism, while assuring that their right to self-determination can be pursued without resorting to violence. He argued that such clarity could pave the way for more peaceful coexistence in the region.
Describing the Kurds as formidable fighters, Philips stressed that they were more than a military force – they were partners and a force for democratisation. He vehemently rejected the categorisation of Kurds as terrorists, drawing a sharp distinction between the peaceful Kurdish movement and the actions of groups such as Hamas.
In comparing the Kurdish movement to Hamas, Philips pointed out that the Kurds, by contrast, are pursuing a peaceful and democratic approach to nation-building.
