The Turkish constitution does not recognize Kurds in Turkey, and so often labels them as terrorists—using them as a convenient scapegoat for military uprisings and other political issues. In Turkey “terrorist” is synonymous with Kurd. Turkey frequently argues that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, is a terrorist organization and thus all Kurdish organizations face the threat of being banned for their real or imagined ties to the PKK.

In 1999, the death toll of Kurds killed in Turkish military operations increased to over 40,000. According to the figures published by Turkey’s own Parliament, 6,000 Kurdish villages were systematically evacuated of all inhabitants and 3,000,000 Kurds have been displaced.

The systematic military campaign against them was nothing short of the elimination of a people, a culture and a homeland.  The oppression of Kurdish people within Turkey can be defined as genocide in various ways; cultural, linguistic and physical all play a part in the cleansing of Kurdish ethnicity from Turkey itself, and are still embraced by the Turkish constitution.

To date, however, Turkey denies these genocidal campaigns. Below are some of the voices of Kurds themselves, as they struggle to bring the world’s attention to their plight and draw parallels between their suffering and that of the Armenians.

Ocalan Says Kurdish Struggle is Against Genocide

Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan, under detention in Italy in December of 1998, defended his cause as a struggle against genocide. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which he founded in 1978, has fought for nearly three decades for self-rule in southeast Turkey, where they make up the majority. “Despite the history of the Kurdish people which goes back more than 2,500 years–the Republic of Turkey continues to deny the existence of this people or its identity–language and culture,” Ocalan said.

In a 1998 letter directed to the President of Armenia, Ocalan welcomed the Belgian Senate’s passage of a resolution recognizing “the reality of the Armenian holocaust” and stated, “Let us recall Hitler’s response to a critic of the ‘final solution’ of the Jewish problem: ‘Who complained about the Armenians?’”

Kurdish Parliament in Exile Recognizes Genocide

On the 82nd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, in 1997, the Brussels-based Kurdish Parliament in Exile passed a resolution recognizing and marking the Armenian Genocide. The resolution, signed by the parliament’s chairman, Zubeyir Aydar, condemned the Genocide and acknowledged the Ottoman government and their Hamidiye collaborators–formed by some Kurdish tribes–for the crime against humanity.

“The Turkish State regime–from history to our days–has worked against the peoples–as if a guilty party–and with her committed genocides has changed the demographics of Anatolia causing the demise of many cultures and civilizations,” the resolution said. “The same policies are being applied in Kurdistan today. I call upon the world public opinion to become aware of this Turkish State policies and vehemently oppose it.”

Turkish Policies Genocidal, Says DTP

Ahmet Turk, the leader of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) in Turkey was prosecuted in October of 2008 for denouncing the government’s policy regarding the Kurds as “cultural and societal genocide.” Speaking to supporters in the south-eastern city of Diyarbakir, Turk said the Kurds had suffered under “cultural and societal genocide” since the military coup of 1980.

The speech came after days of protests in south-eastern cities where hundreds of Kurds were arrested after clashes in various towns in the pre-dominantly Kurdish-populated south-east.

Saddam’s Destruction of the Kurds

Between 1987-1988, Iraq’s deposed dictator Saddam Hussein slaughtered some 182,000 Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq, using artillery, air strikes, death camps and poison gas attacks. During his trial in late 2006, Hussein legitimized the massacres in Anfal “as a legitimate counter-insurgency operation against Kurdish separatists at a time when Iraq was at war with Iran,” much like the manner in which Turkey seeks to justify its Genocide of Armenians.

Panel Discusses Relations Between Turks, Kurds, and Armenians

On April 20, 2009 a panel comprised of Armenian, Turkish, and Kurdish scholars came together in Massachusetts to discuss the uneven relations between Turks, Kurds, and Armenians under Ottoman Rule. The panel dove deep into the nuances of the Armenian Genocide, presenting the gamut of issues connected to it, from the role of Kurdish chieftains in the execution of the crime, to the open possibilities for reconciliation between Kurds and Armenians based on a shared experience of oppression under Turkish rule. “Kurdish-Armenian dialogue carries a very promising potential for reconciliation that is very much open to the issues of truth-seeking and justice, which are often absent in Turkish-Armenian dialogue,” said one panelist, Dr. Bilgin Ayata from Johns Hopkins University.

Turkish Assault on the PKK

Turkish warplanes have been bombing PKK installations in Northern Iraq since early 2008, when Turkey officially launched a ground incursion into northern Iraq, sending 10,000 troops across the border supported by air assets to neutralize PKK bases from which attacks against the Turkish military were being mounted. Since they first began as small-scale cross border incursions in late 2007, these attacks have led to the deaths of thousands of Kurds, civilian and PKK alike.  The first modern incursion into Northern Iraq, however, was launched in 1983 and has continued sporadically since.

Armenian Apology Causes Brawl in Turkish Parliament

On December 30, 2008, Turkey’s only pro-Kurdish political party, the Democratic Society Party (DTP) apologized to the Armenians and Assyrians for the 1915 Genocide. “Sensing the pain of the events in our hearts, we feel that we need to apologize,” it’s leader, Ahmet Turk said. “We are ashamed when we look at our Armenian or Assyrian brothers.”

That same day, a member of the DTP requested in parliament that the Turkish legislature apologize to Armenians for the “events of 1915,” which he described using the Kurdish word for Genocide. His remarks caused an uproar, with members from the Republican People’s Party and Justice and Development Party hurling personal insults at Kurdish deputy for “insulting the society in which you live.”

“We remember, We Share Your Grief”

On April 24, 2009, “Gunluk,” the Kurds’ only Kurdish-language newspaper in Turkey, featured a large headline above its logo that read: “We remember, we share your grief,” in Armenian with Armenian lettering.

Gunluk was the only paper in Turkey to commemorate the genocide victims—not with a few words, but by dedicating the entire issue to the genocide. On that same day, the Human Rights Association of Turkey organized a commemoration calling for the truth to be revealed that a genocide was committed here in this country in 1915. Although a number of Turkish media outlets were present, none bud Gunluk covered the event.

On April 24, 2009, the annual Armenian Genocide commemoration took place at the Georgia State Capitol. Over 100 Armenian Americans and anti-genocide activists were in attendance for the commemoration, which coincided with the issuing of proclamations by Georgia’s Governor and Atlanta’s Mayor honoring the victims of the Armenian Genocide. Featured speakers and guests at the event included Mrs. Carolyn Young—speaking on behalf of her husband, civil rights leader and former US Ambassador to the UN, Andrew Young—as well as Emory University Professor, Dr. Julieta Stepanyan-Abgaryan and ANC Georgia Chairman Sarkis Agasarkisian.

On hand were also members of the Kurdish American community of Atlanta. The following is a transcript of remarks offered at the commemoration event by Ara Alan, Secretary General of the Kurdish Youth Club and Director of the Kurdish Cultural Center in Atlanta, GA.

We are gathered today on April 24th to commemorate the souls lost during the Armenian Genocide. We are gathered to deliver the cries of help from those who were silenced in 1915 by the Ottoman Turks. I would like to take a moment to remember all the victims of genocide across the 20^th century; a century that has been darkened with their blood and silenced by our disregard.

Ottoman Turks led the way into the twentieth century by committing the first act of genocide. Their example was followed by many more, such as the Holocaust in Germany, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Rwanda, Kosovo and the notorious Anfal campaign by Saddam Hussein in Iraqi-Kurdistan.

I come and stand with our friends, the Armenians, because I understand your cause. I understand what it means to have genocide committed against you.  I look to you with inspiration and pride. I wonder will our next generation be as courageous as you are. Like your grandparents, the crime of genocide has been committed against us, as well.

In Iraq, in the name of purification of a country, thousands of Kurds were taken from their villages and murdered in the deserts south of the country. This operation of genocide was name Anfal.  Chemical weapons were used in this operation by Saddam Hussein.  He used such illegal weapons to help scare and kill innocent villagers. They were used as a tool to round up the people.

Using strategic military planning, the Iraqi Army would attack a region in Kurdistan from three or more fronts. They would leave only one opening for the people to escape. Doing so, the Army would force the residents of the many villages in that region to congregate in one location. From there the villagers would be rounded up, shipped to concentration camps and systematically killed.

The Anfal genocide started in 1988 but it is without an end. The gassing during Anfal has acted as a mutagen and caused the DNA of its victims to change.  According to the Health Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), the ratio of patients with cancer in the gassed populations is 5:1 when compared to non-gassed populations.

Many of the little girls exposed to the gassing in 1988 today give birth to children with down-syndrome or still-birth and they have very high rates of miscarriage; some have even become completely infertile. Incidents of breast cancer are much higher today in Kurdistan and cases of breast cancer are much more aggressive than in other countries, with a higher likelihood of death.

As result of the gassing many Kurds are dying today. Many are paralyzed, handicapped, blinded or bedbound. Many babies from the new generation are born with genetic diseases that result in their death or a life that is dependent on medical care, which is almost non-existent where they are born. In this way, the Kurdish genocide continues today into post-Saddam Iraq.

Dr. Gregory Stanton, President of Genocide Watch, has categorized genocide into eight stages. He has done so to help the international community use these stages as indicators and a warning sign of upcoming genocides. Strangely enough all genocides follow these eight stages.

They all start with classification of the target group, followed by symbolization, then dehumanization, organization, polarization of the society, preparation, actual extermination in the seventh stage—and then denial in the eighth.

It might come to you as a surprise; why would denial be part of genocide? According to Genocide Watch, denial is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres.

The perpetrators of genocide dig up the mass graves, burn the bodies, try to cover-up the evidence and intimidate the witnesses.  They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims.  In short, denial is a sign of justification of genocide and accepting it is a method of governance.

Turkey’s 94 years of denial policy should come as an alarm to the international community. The denial of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 was followed by the Dermis massacre in 1937. In a similar fashion to the Armenian Genocide, and with the exact same justification, 78,000 Kurds were massacred in that city in Turkey. The denial policy once again allowed Turkey to destroy over 4000 Kurdish villages in the 1990s.

Just like the Ottoman Turks greeted the twentieth century with stains of genocide, our twenty-first century already has a stain: Darfur.  Darfur stands tall, as a symbol of our failure to learn from previous genocides and our tolerance for genocide denial.

Genocides do not occur because one race of humanity is superior to the other. They don’t occur because one nation has the right to eradicate another or that one religious view or political ideology is superior above those different from it.

Genocide occurs when one group appoints themselves as superior and the world turns a blind eye. Genocide occurs because we let it. Our silence is the fuel that genocide perpetrators use to burn the bodies and hide the evidence.

Let us not be silent… let us speak and condemn… let us bring those that deny to acceptance.

Another world is possible–One where economics are based on justice, democracy is founded in principle, human rights are cherished and protected, and diversity is shared and celebrated.  In an exclusive interview with Haytoug, Khatchik DerGhougassian, a professor of International Relations at the Universidad de San Andrés in Argentina, discusses the social, economic and political challenges plaguing the 21st century and, with a focus on Armenia,  outlines the potential for progressive movements to radically and change the status quo for the better, both locally and globally.

Below we present the interview in its entirety.

HAYTOUG: Since at least the 1970s, the world has been undergoing a form of free-market economic integration commonly referred to as neo-liberal globalization. What is the extent to which Armenia itself has become a part of this process since its independence and what do you feel have been its main impacts on the country?

KHATCHIK DERGHOUGASSIAN: Armenia has fully embraced the neoliberal model. As in Russia—and, in fact, all of the former Soviet republics—it applied the “shock-therapy” approach to liberalize the economy and privatize everything. In the immediate aftermath of independence, more precisely between 1991 and 1994, the parliamentary faction of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) argued for an alternative approach, advocating for a gradual liberalization and a central role for the state in strategic decisions, as well as healthcare, education and social security. It was consistent with the ARF’s other main objective concerning the Constitution: creating a parliamentary system rather than the risk of concentrating too much power within the hands of the executive through a strong presidency.

The debate ended with the crackdown on the ARF by the end of 1994, a move that was necessary to open the way for the implementation of the “shock-therapy” model and a strong presidential system. The result has been a twofold concentration of wealth: geographical and oligarchic/monopolistic. The central perimeter of Yerevan is a developed urban zone with a high standard of living, whereas the periphery of the city (not to mention outside of Yerevan) is almost completely underdeveloped—with here and there extravagant residences usually built by the new capitalist class, Diaspora Armenians, or some wealthy person living in Russia. This is the typical landscape of the so-called “creative destruction” type capitalism which was applied. And, indeed, as a consequence of the “shock-therapy” style privatization, a small oligarchy has become virtually the owner of the country.

The country’s economic policy follows closely to the orthodox guidelines of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, maintaining a straight fiscal discipline. Social concerns, including jobs, are non-issues as the free-market dogmatic belief is that growth is the magical solution to every challenge. The main objective of the Central Bank of Armenia is to ensure the flow of money, the only bloodline for the economy. This is broadly how Armenia became “part” of neoliberal globalization.

The tragic part is that once the model had been implemented successfully and structured the economic system, no real critical or alternative thought emerged. It seems as if everyone accepted it as the only possibility. Of course, Armenia’s bubble economy and double-digit—or at least high-level—growth from 2002 to 2008 could have been the main cause of this; while certainly no one predicted its inevitable decline (if not crash), at least not as strongly as to start formulating an alternative approach and build consensus and public support. No one really cared about the unfair income redistribution, the growing social discontent, the precarious conditions in the job market, the heavy dependence on remittances, the lack of value-added production, and the despair of the educated youth seeking to emigrate in hopes of finding a decent job and future.

Moreover, when the global financial crisis broke in September 2008, government officials in Armenia publicly expressed their faith in the strength of the Armenian economy, which was, supposedly, pretty well protected against the impact of the crisis. We are now witnessing how the crisis is strongly hitting Armenia and, yet, the measures taken to face the crisis are exactly the same ones that are at the root of the current debacle.

H: What sort of effect, if any, do you feel the current process of globalization is having on the Armenian Diaspora? How do you feel we can properly adapt to these changes associated with globalization and move forward more effectively into the 21st century?

K.D.: The Diaspora has always been a global reality. Nevertheless, up until the late 1980s, the dominant narrative of Diaspora awareness was the conviction that, as the phenomenon did have a start—the Genocide—then it necessarily should also have an end—going back home. In this sense, I think that perhaps the most important impact of globalization on the Diaspora has been the emergence of a new Diaspora awareness based on a different narrative; one that accepts this transnational reality as a strong, and perhaps a strategically necessary one.

But I would say that globalization came as a later impact; the reality of the Diaspora underwent a structural change earlier,  in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with the massive immigration of Armenians from the Middle East—Lebanon, Syria and Iran—to the West—Europe, Canada and the United States. This “westernization” of the Armenian Diaspora gave a strong blow to the old center-periphery frame of the Diaspora, whereas the hope, or myth, of returning to the homeland vanished in the air with the independence of Armenia.

We are still trying to rationalize this structural change. We’ll see if anything practical will actually come out of it.

H: Over the last two decades, the world has also seen the growth of an active global justice movement struggling against the damaging effects of neo-liberalism. Participants in this movement come together in gatherings such as the World Social Forum (WSF) which you have participated on behalf of the ARF. Can you tell us a little bit about your experience at such gatherings, and why you think it is important for Armenians to engage ourselves in this broader global justice movement?

K.D.: The interest for the WSF emerged during the ARF Bureau’s July 2002 seminar in Yerevan aimed at designing and implementing a socialist program in Armenia. But it wasn’t until January 2005 that, for the first time, a joint Armenian National Committee-Armenian Youth Federation delegation with ARF and AYF members from Armenia, California, Argentina and Brazil participated in the WSF in Porto Alegre, Brazil. The following year, in 2006, a delegation from Argentina and Brazil went to Caracas, Venezuela where the Forum was planned to take place. AYF delegations also participated in regional forums in the Americas and Europe.

The experience was very rich and important. Unfortunately, we failed to reach the wider circles of the AYF and ARF to convince them about the importance of continuing such contact. Nor were we able to create a space of our own in the WSF, despite that in both Porto Alegre and Caracas the issues that we put forward—Genocide, Karabagh and Javakhk self-determination, social justice in Armenia, etc.—generated a great deal of interest and received support from known intellectuals and militants.

This may be because the WSF is mostly a Global South phenomenon—Latin America, Africa, some Middle Easterners, and India/South Eastern Asia, with an important intellectual/militant input from progressive sectors in Europe, Canada and the US—and that Eastern Europeans and former Soviet Union countries, including Armenia, find it too distant from a conceptual perspective. It is a pity because the “other world” that the WSF aims at is precisely where Armenia needs to see itself in order to start thinking about a radical reform of its deeply unfair and expulsive social order, the political institutions that perpetuate and legitimize this order, and the economic infrastructure that sustains and recreates it.

H: What can Armenian activists learn from mass movements in Latin America, where we have seen in recent years a rise in popular mobilization, empowerment of marginalized groups, and electoral victories for candidates who reject the policies of neo-liberalism?

K.D.: The widely known “left-turn” phenomenon in South America is a very rich and ongoing experience that Armenian activists should study. They should study the way parties and social movements built alliances, worked first to build a wide social consensus for their program and then rose to power through a vast majority vote; the way social safety nets were constructed in order to face economic hardships after the collapse of the neoliberal model; the way workers occupied abandoned industrial plants and started to produce in a cooperative manner; the way private multinational companies came under scrutiny for investment promises they made but failed to accomplish; the way the doors were shut to the IMF and its policies; the way private and public capital created highly successful companies; the way the social agenda received priority; the way nationalization stopped being synonymous with failure; the way the power of the people stopped the privatization of their country’s natural resources; the way zero-hunger became an objective and food security programs were designed and implemented. All of these and many other developments have already generated a vast literature, documentary movies, research programs and so forth that Armenian activists should study to produce a critical/alternative thinking about the dominant, and failing, neoliberal model.

The most important characteristic of the South American “left-turn” is the commitment to democracy. Change took place peacefully, without military intervention, and without a call for arms or revolutions as was usually seen in the past. It is the power of the people that allowed South American leaders to implement long-term radical reforms, the aim of which ultimately would be to replace the dominant model of the Market Economy with the alternative model of the Working Society.

Armenia needs a radical reform of its political, economic and social system, including a constitutional shift to a parliamentary regime, progressive taxation to promote wealth redistribution and laws protecting jobs, insuring universal healthcare, education and social protection; not some so-called “color revolution,” whatever that means.

____________
Editor’s Note: This article is featured in the Summer 2009 issue of Haytoug, a quarterly publication by the Armenian Youth Federation. The upcoming issue will focus on the theme of solidarity between peoples and causes. Visit the AYF Booth at the Navasartian Games (July 2-5) to pick up a free copy. It will also be available at community centers, schools and local Armenian book stores. You can also download it in PDF today and visit the website to sign up for a free subscription.

More features from this Summer’s Haytoug:

• Kurds and Armenians: Finding Common Cause
• The Dark Side of Your Sweet Treat
• Vahe Berberian: The Art and the Artist