Customer Reviews

Turkey's Kurdish Question (Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Tukey is objective on this issue is solid and clear, that is all the Kurds,and other ethnic people who live in the Turkish territory are part of the multi-ethnic Turkish society. This will always remain that way and Turkey never will be divided whatsoever the consequences. I disagree with the author on the issues such as Kurdish issue and Kurdistan, there is no Kurdistan.In fact, there is no Kurdish issue in Turkey, but there is a terrosist issue, that is the bloody PKK and its followers. All the Turks and the Kurds are part of this multi-entegrated society. Tim Dinch California

This is probably the one of the best books about Kurds out there, but it still does not do justice to a complex issue. I am a Kurd and I don't want to live in an ethnically-pure state or anything like that. Most Kurds are happy in democratic Turkey, and there is no real Kurdish problem here...

What does one do when there are more nations than states? Henri Barkey and G. Fuller have done a great service to the citizens of Republic of Turkey with this excellent book. It is a snap shot of all of the key factors, players and parameters surrounding this deadly conflict that causes tremendous suffering and drags an otherwise a very dynamic, open and vibrant society down a dark path. They have avoided detailed historical anlysis, assigning blames, pointless ethnic and cultural debates and focused on what scenarios are likely to take these two nations who have no choice but share a common destiny, a country and a flag, to a peaceful coexistence. The book's time line seems to go back and forth a bit due to different times it may have been edited or modified and there are some small but still dissapointing typos, but otherwise a very professionally done investigation. The authors know their topic and there are plenty of references. They clearly point out that it is quite feasible to embark on a path to solving this conflict within the boundries of what is acceptable to both parties. They point out that the solution of the problem is also closely tied to some key and overdue structural reforms that would address a whole range of other obstacles that hinder the progress of Turkey in the global scene. Contrary to what is implied in the book though, for most Turks, being a Turk is not an ethnic identity. Most Turks are well aware that such classification is not possible in the first place as almost all races, religions and ethnic groups are well represented among the citizens of Turkey, including Kurds. There are those extreme nationalists of course who may believe in a "theoretically" pure nation, but most people do not take these concepts seriously. Keep in mind that Turks, however one may define them, were the last ones to fall victim to the craze of nationalism, even that was mostly by strong prodding by Ataturk. Secondly, the authors repeat the age old "neglected South East" excuse among the serious sins of the Turkish establishment. This notion is quite outdated and contradicts the facts. Turkish State, hard data proves, has been enormously subsidizing this region and its predominantly Kurdish population, at the expense of all other tax payers. Some of the largest public works projects (in the World!) and investments have targeted this area and mostly without the support of international financial institutions. It is also ironic that while preaching decentralization, State is also accused of not "doing" enough. More weight should have been given to how the minority issues have been exploited shamelessly by Western powers and Russia, at the expense of enormous suffering, to rip apart the Ottoman Empire at the end of 19th century. The memory and pain of this is burned deep in the Turk's psyche. It is also source of much frustration and cynisism that countries of numerous Europeans who tend to preach Turks about these matters have explicitly racist definitions of citizenship on their books. In the final analysis, the solution is actually simpler and easier than imagined. It does not require any fundemental changes (not in this aspect anyway) to the existing constitution which is already mostly blind to religion and ethnicity. It does require the state to curb its unlimited powers. It does require a civil dialog. It does require Kurds to put Turks' minds at ease about their very understandable concerns. It also requires that no foreign elemements be allowed into this matter. Given how little sacrifice and leadership it would have taken to step away from this deadly spiral, it really is a shame that things got this far in the first place.

In the heat of the United Nations debate in 1948 surrounding the decision to create a Jewish state, Warren Austin, the American ambassador, vented his frustration by calling on Arabs and Jews to "settle this problem in a true Christian spirit." Fifty years later, his appeal is still laughingly remembered. Barkey and Fuller, two specialists on Turkey, write nothing so silly in their attempt to find ways for Turks and Kurds to make peace, but their recommendations do have a comparably provincial quality: basically, they want those two peoples to solve their problem in what might be called "a true American spirit." That is, after a spirited survey of the Kurdish issue, they offer a host of recommendations, every one of which is reasonable, desirable, sensible-and ineffably American. Recognize the Kurdish language, they say, end government propagandizing, give up attempts to establish a unitary ethnic polity, redress economic ills, reduce the security presence, legalize the Kurdish political parties, withdraw the military from politics, permit greater freedom of expression, decentralize the government, and experiment with federalism.

Even so, the authors do not guarantee these demanding steps will do the trick, conceding only that they offer a possibility for the present Turkish state to remain intact. But Barkey and Fuller probably overestimate the chances of Americanizing Turkish politics, just as they underestimate the staying power of the Turkish Republic. The region's states (like Lebanon and Iraq) may be held together with string and sealing wax, but they do seem to survive, at no matter what the cost. Even without fulfilling our authors' recommendations, today's Turkey seems likely to remain whole.

Middle East Quarterly, March 1999

makes this a must-have for students. Each chapter is organized like a scholarly paper, so whether reading straight-through or in small amounts, it is a coherent history of the Kurdish problem in Turkey through to the 1990s. Exceptional organization for quick reference. Barkey and Fuller provide enough details to give a grasp of the problems Turkey is facing with regard to Kurdish nationalism, without cluttering their message with so much detail as to confuse the reader. Further, they make their own suggestions for resolution, reasons for those suggestions, and potential obstacles to achieving a peaceful resolution that is worth considering. Even though the book was published in the 90s, the information is mostly applicable to todays events. The scope is not completely limited to Turkey, as it also includes Iran, Iraq and Syria--their own "Kurdish Questions" and the recent interplay between those states and Turkey.

This book frankly addresses the questions related to the Kurdish question in Turkey. It is great that it is not simply called the Kurdish problem as so many authors do. This is a unbiased source that holds the Kurds as terrorists when their actions are such and refugees when the excess of the Turkish government take hold. The analysis of how Kurds have integrated into political parties was of particular interest and there is a nice section on how religion affects Kurdish roles which I found particularly interesting. The solutions to the question are put forth in a straightforward and logical manner. The most pressing solution is that this is an ethnic problem and requires an ethnic solution resulting in a multiethnic state which Turkey wishes to resist. The authors make the point that the Kurds do not have an agenda for a separate state and most don't consider that a realistic goal anyway. Overall this is an essential book to read to understand the Kurdish question.

Either some of the reviewers here are hijacking the website to advocate their biased views, or the book has left them vastly misinformed.
There is a Kurdish issue in Turkey - as the many adverse European Court of Human Rights judgments against Turkey have proved. Human rights violations of the most severe nature continue - including murders, disappearances, torture, rape, fabricated criminal charges, property destruction and more. The assertions by the reviewer that "there is no Kurdistan" and "there is no Kurdish issue in Turkey, but there is a terrorist issue, that is the bloody PKK and its followers..." is clearly not an objective viewpoint. 1) Are you saying the "Kurdish issue" is equatable with "a terrorist issue" - ie all Kurds are terrorists? 2) The PKK has been on ceasefire for over 2 years 3) This ignores the other Kurdish parties such as HADEP, KDP, PUK. In fact, a very big part of the "Kurdish issue" is this very problem - Turkey's labelling of all Kurds as "PKK terrorists" in order to justify human rights violations.
As for "there is no Kurdistan" - although Turkey seeks to obscure its existence, the term has existed since the 13th century (long before Turkey, Iran and Iraq borders were drawn). Kurds were even guaranteed autonomy of it after WW1, but the treaty was ignored because of subsequent diplomatic cowardice. If Kurdistan were formally recognised, it would stretch across the borders of Turkey, Iraq and Iran for some distance of 200,000 square miles - roughly the same as France.
The investments made by Turkey in areas populated by Kurds have been made to rebuild areas destroyed by Turks. This sounds like a positive step - except that the areas are being rebuilt in a way which enables the Turkish state to keep a close eye on Kurdish activities in the regions. Furthermore, it is incorrect to say it has mostly been without the aid of international financial institutions. (eg the enormous GAP project). Why, as the previous reviewer states, should "no foreign elements be allowed into this matter"? While personally I resent globalisation, Turkey cannot reap the benefits of NATO membership, international investment, and seek to join the European Union, without a corresponding loss of sovereignty. (Similarly, while the solutions in the book are described as being "ineffably American" by one of the few decent reviewers here - isn't that really the concomitant of signing international treaties and joining international organisations, as Turkey has volunteered to do?) Most of the authors' recommendations for "solving the Kurdish problems" are already Turkey's legal obligations as a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights. (The real question is why isn't the international community forcing Turkey to keep its' promises.....) But, as a solution to the problem of Kurdish human rights violations, "stop breaking human rights law you voluntarily signed, Turkey" seems an obvious starting point.
I am extremely cynical that a Kurd in Diyarbakir would seriously maintain there was no Kurdish problem there. Perhaps he means that the Kurdish problem is more concentrated in rural areas, and he does not come across it in daily life in Diyarbakir. This would still acknowledge that a Kurdish problem does exist. If he means there is no Kurdish problem in Turkey... Then I'm afraid I find his claim to be Kurdish very hard to believe.
Just to be even more cynical, there seems enormous disparity between the numbers of readers who have "found the reviews useful" here. Tim Dinch and Diyarbakir Reader - you wouldn't be clicking on your own reviews to recommend them, would you? Perhaps because of large numbers of readers who have found your reviews "unhelpful"... did 87 people *really* find your book review ("I disagree with the author about issues such as Kurdish issue and Kurdistan") helpful?

The Kurds' right to self-determination is undeniable. So are the practical difficulties attached to implementing that right. The book offers a comprehensive, factual, superbly documented and thorough analysis of the history of the Kurds, the largest single ethnic group still denied a country. It discusses the implications of the Kurdish problem for Turkey and closely examines the Kurdish issue in light of Turkey's civil society and military.

A great read, especially considering the current "hard line" the West has taken on a very similar problem: Kososvo.