Kurdish education won't divide Turkey, says politician

Rudaw Net

7 hours ago

Also in Interview
Germany must recognize Kurds by ethnicity: Kurdish-German MP
Diplomacy with Tehran fading as Israel-Iran tensions escalate: Ex-US negotiator
German official urges strict migration policies, welcomes PKK dissolution
Druze leader denounces Syria's constitutional declaration as 'tyranny'
A+ A-
Ankara should not take Kurdish demands for education in their mother tongue as a threat to Turkey's unity, Zekeriya Yapicioglu, leader of the Free Cause Party (Huda Par), told Rudaw in an interview on June 18.
'Education in the mother tongue is not just for Kurds. It is a fundamental right for everyone," Yapicioglu said when asked about the potential for Kurdish education at Turkey's schools.
"We planned, as an objective, that everyone who wants will be able to receive education in their mother tongue after grade five. This relaxes the country. If the official language is Turkish, everyone should learn it. Everyone learns it anyway. But education in the mother tongue does not divide this country. I think it takes away the trump card from the hands of people who try to provoke different elements of this country against each other, who try to set them against each other with bad intentions," he added.
Under Turkey's education system, Kurds are allowed to study in their mother tongue at school for a few hours a week through elective courses that require a minimum of 10 students.
Huda Par is a Kurdish Islamist political party. It is allied with the ruling political alliance in Turkey.
Yapicioglu touched on his party's stance on the latest developments in the region and the status of Kurds.
The Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) decided in May to dissolve itself and end its armed struggle as part of peace talks with Ankara.
Yapicioglu said he expects the PKK to take "concrete steps" to lay down arms in the summer.
"We hope and pray that the laying down of arms will happen, but even if it doesn't, the steps that need to be taken must definitely be taken without being tied to that condition," he said.
The interview has been shortened for the sake of clarity.
Rudaw: There is an ongoing war between Israel and Iran. Mutual attacks continue. How do you evaluate this situation as Huda Par. What do you forecast?
Zekeriya Yapicioglu: We have been saying this from the beginning. Actually, it is something that everyone who knows Zionism will accept and acknowledge that Zionism is the most dangerous ideological racism and practice in the world. The structure fed by this practice and this thought, that is with that Zionist philosophy, Zionist thought, the terrorist organization called Israel - actually, a thousand witnesses are needed to call it a state - wants to continue its vitality and existence by constantly attacking and creating instability around itself.
Remember, right after [Operation] al-Aqsa Flood on October 7, 2023, when American and some European countries' warships headed to the region, Turkey made this statement: 'The real target is Turkey.' Iran also made statements saying 'actually Iran is the target, they are trying to draw us into this war.' We also said that day, yes, they have such a goal. The target is both Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan. Today, maybe Jordan is helping the Zionist terror regime to shoot down missiles fired from Iran over its territory, but we said Jordan is also a target.
They have a belief. There is an area they call the Promised Land, which includes all the territories of the Kurdistan Region. A part of Iran, a significant part of Turkey, all of Syria, Jordan and almost all of Iraq are within these lands they call the Promised Land. And they believe that those lands have been promised to them by God. They say 'We will maintain dominance in those lands.' They don't hide this, they say it very openly.
Therefore, this is a matter of time, not whether it will happen or not. We said that day that an attack on Iran is a matter of time. They will attack when they believe the time has come. They don't need any excuse for this. They will attack when they think of attacking. When the time comes that they think of including Turkey in the war, they will include Turkey in some way.
What kind of role and position should Turkey take in your opinion?
What needs to be seen is this. The only language Jews understand is power. If they understand that their lives will be seriously hurt when they attack you, they will refrain from attacking you. There is no other moral rule, no legal rule, no international custom that will stop them. Let no one deceive themselves. But if you have enough power in your hands, if they know that their lives will be hurt when they attack you, they won't attack. Maybe they will even try to get along, friendly.
Should Turkey use force or stand by Iran?
It should stand by humanity. Right now, this war is not an Israel-Iran war. Just as the war that started a year ago was not an Israel-Hamas war. It is Israel's war with humanity. This Zionist structure, this mentality is the biggest obstacle to regional peace. As long as they exist in the region and as long as they have this mentality, peace and tranquility will never come to the region. Zionism is the biggest threat to world peace.
Therefore, Turkey should be on the side of humanity. Actually, not only Muslims but everyone who is human, everyone who can remain human, everyone with a conscience should realize the danger and see that this danger is setting the world on fire. Everyone should pour whatever water they have in their bucket onto this fire.
The current regime in Iran is a very oppressive regime. We know and see that there is very serious pressure especially on Kurds. It's also a fact that executions happen every day. What would you like to say about this, especially when you think about the political and social life of Kurds in western Iran (Rojhelat)? Would you favor the continuation of the same status quo or should there be a change in this direction?
Undoubtedly, the existence of oppression in a place is not just related to the name of the regime there. Therefore, information coming from different channels about the problems experienced there names it differently. My faith commands me to stop oppression wherever it is. God absolutely commands justice. No matter who does it, injustice is injustice. Therefore, it is said that this stems from the structure of the regime, but for example, were Kurds very comfortable during the previous regime, the Shah regime?
Especially during the single-party period in Turkey, that was when the greatest oppression was applied, in the first years of the republic during the single-party period. But today, those who are in alliance with that single party say in a different way that Kurds saw the greatest pressure and oppression during the AKP government periods. Just because someone says so doesn't mean it's true.
As a Kurdish politician, as the leader of a Kurdish party, shouldn't you oppose the pressure of the current status quo in Iran on the freedom of Kurds there, especially keeping a pressure card like execution constantly alive?
It's very fashionable to oppose the death penalty just because it's the death penalty, but I think the punishment for some crimes should be execution, because of what was done, I mean. But first of all, laws should be applied equally to everyone. If they are not applied equally to everyone, if laws are applied differently to someone according to their identity, social status or wealth, or if some people apply this execution against people they see as rivals or dangerous politically, if they apply it against innocent people, if it is used as a weapon, then this execution is a very dangerous weapon. Therefore, there should be no death penalty. But I believe some people deserve execution. For example, I think a person who kills an innocent person, an innocent child without cause, for profit, should have no punishment other than execution.
What is the formula your party envisions for Kurds in Iran? Would you want them to have status? What kind of status should they have?
Actually, we have been saying from the beginning about the Kurdish issue, in Iraq's Kurdistan Region or in Iran's Kurdistan region, there is a dense Kurdish population in several provinces there. Every place has its own specific conditions. For example, in one place, people can discuss that 'federation is not enough' and say 'there should be independence.' Indeed, remember that a referendum was held in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. They asked the people 'Should we declare independence?' A large majority sided with independence. Now, where is the most advanced place in terms of the status Kurds have? Iraqi Kurdistan Region. There is a federative structure, they have their own parliament, their own president, prime minister, governments. Peshmerga provides internal security there. But despite this, some discomfort arose due to the non-implementation of some articles of the Iraqi constitution and a referendum was held there.
We said then that maybe we can make some recommendations, but we have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the people there. Kurds in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region know their situation better and everyone should respect whatever decision they make. What falls to us is this. Let us fulfill our responsibility if a responsibility falls on us regarding ensuring peace and tranquility there. But we did not see ourselves as having the right to put ourselves in their place and make decisions on their behalf.
It's the same for Kurds in Iran. The people there should decide what the most suitable situation is for them. While making this decision, they should really take into account the peace of the people there and be aware of some imperial calculations.
I'm hoping to get a clearer answer. Kurds in Iran - some political parties currently think that the current regime should be overthrown and a more libertarian regime should come. If all Kurdish parties have such a demand in this direction and such a process begins in Iran, what would be your attitude? Would your relations with Iran allow you to support this demand?
Will things really go to that point? Yes, we actually followed it. Such a call came from some, for example from Iran's KDP, saying 'the regime must be overthrown.' I honestly don't have very detailed information about the regime's relationship with Kurds there, especially with those parties. I haven't focused on the subject enough to analyze it. But if Kurds there unanimously say something like that, then we definitely need to go and see what's happening there.
Let's come to the recent process, the ongoing peace process in Turkey or what the state labels the 'terror-free Turkey' process. A process started with MHP leader Devlet Bahceli's call and continues. Where are you as Huda Par in this process?
Actually, since this process started and even before it started, there was something we constantly repeated. We were saying that weapons and violence cannot and should not be a method of seeking rights and must definitely be abandoned. As far as I understood, this process was carried out between the National Intelligence Organization (MIT) and the PKK for a long time, and after reaching a certain maturity, it was declared by Mr. Bahceli. He said something on the day parliament opened, then on October 22 he said if he [PKK founder Abdullah Ocalan] disbands the organization and the era of weapons is over, let him come and speak in the DEM Party [Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party] group. He set the bar very high.
We said about this, yes, this must definitely happen. But as we did before, two issues should not be confused. Maybe one dimension of the problem is the violence dimension, but the Kurdish issue is not just about violence. We constantly say this. We even wrote it in our party program. If the Kurdish issue is seen only as violence, a public order problem, or partially as regional economic backwardness, this problem cannot be solved. The problem has political dimensions, social dimension, psychological dimension, and even an international dimension. Therefore, this problem should be seen with all these dimensions and steps towards a solution should be taken accordingly.
Today, if two issues are mixed or one is seen as a condition of the other, there is a risk of the solution and this process getting stuck. After all, a similar process was experienced ten years ago. We said this at that time too. We said this is a matter of rights and law. I am not a PKK member, I don't have weapons. But if you want something outside my will to grant me a right, I demand, for example if you tie it to the condition of PKK laying down arms, you have no right to do this. I cannot make the PKK drop the weapons in their hands. Neither can I influence them nor can I take it by force. There are very large masses of people who are not PKK members. Even those who think the PKK has harmed them, who have been seriously victimized by the PKK, they have legitimate and reasonable demands. Why should we tie these to the condition of PKK laying down arms?
Does the government or its partners ask for your opinion in this process? What do you suggest regarding the continuation of this process?
We meet and we say these things I mentioned. We say that we went through a process ten years ago. Our warnings about that were not taken into account then, don't make the same mistakes now.
You actually suggest solving it within the framework of brotherhood law, but this brotherhood law discourse is a somewhat vague discourse. What exactly do you suggest? With constitutional change, for example federation, autonomy? What is the model you suggest? Or should it continue within the existing system?
We have always said that everyone says we are brothers. We say it too, yes we are brothers. But let's not be content with just talking about this brotherhood. Until now, there's been plenty of talk about it. But the law of brotherhood needs to be realized, this law needs to be fulfilled. What is that law? Whatever you have, let your brother have it too. A Kurd wants the same right that a Turk has. No less, no more. Since our grandfathers founded this state together, since they fought together on the front in the War of Independence 100 years ago, fought side by side and fell as martyrs, since they are joint owners of this homeland, and Kurds were already here when Turks came.
Concretely, how should this brotherhood law be reflected in the constitution in your opinion?
In the constitutional matter, we say that the preamble of the constitution should be short and concise. It should be purified of ethnic emphasis. Ethnic-based emphasis should be strongly avoided throughout the constitution. The definition of citizenship is one of these. We say there must absolutely be a constitution purified of tutelage institutions and that ideology, it should be a constitution made by civilians.
Now if you can empathize, if you see yourself as equal to the person you call your brother, there should be equality in rights. No one should be excluded or treated unfairly because of their ethnic identity, sectarian identity, or even their belief. That is, they should neither be excluded nor favored.
As a party within the People's Alliance, do you also tell this to other stakeholders? And what do you expect? Will there be education in your mother tongue in your opinion?
We think it absolutely should be. Education in the mother tongue is not just for Kurds. It is a fundamental right for everyone. You put it forward as a will, you say I recognize this as a right, and I'm starting preparations for it. We planned, as an objective, that everyone who wants will be able to receive education in their mother tongue after grade five. This relaxes the country. If the official language is Turkish, everyone should learn it. Everyone learns it anyway. But education in the mother tongue does not divide this country. I think it takes away the trump card from the hands of people who try to provoke different elements of this country against each other, who try to set them against each other with bad intentions.
You are also one of the partners of the People's Alliance. PKK was presenting this to the state as a precondition for laying down arms.
They said they would lay down arms.
They made a decision. After all, the congress made such a decision. After this stage, eyes are on the state, but this period seems to be extending a bit. What's going on in the state's internal corridors?
As far as I can see, the situation is this, the state is following the process. Will what is being said really happen or not? A decision was made but will this decision be put into practice or not? The state is looking at that and is also waiting for that decision to be put into practice in this sense. They don't want to give the impression that the steps to be taken have been tied to this condition, made a subject of bargaining. They are waiting so that such an image doesn't form. They say we hope to see this practice within the next two or three months. Hopefully it will happen, weapons will actually be laid down. That also appears between the lines of the statements made by those speaking on behalf of the government or the state. They hope to see with concrete steps that those weapons have been laid down at the latest in July or August, in these summer months. We hope and pray that the laying down of arms will happen, but even if it doesn't, the steps that need to be taken must definitely be taken without being tied to that condition.
When this process between PKK and the state reaches a point and it's possible that DEM Party joins the People's Alliance, what happens, what do you foresee as two Kurdish parties whose chemistry doesn't match?
When the DEM Party comes there, they certainly won't ask Huda Par, or when AKP [Justice and Development Party] conducts these negotiations with the DEM Party and invites them under the umbrella of the People's Alliance, they won't make it conditional on our acceptance. After all, we say there should be dialogue between all political parties. Of course, we may have differences. There are many points where we think differently from the AKP. There are many points where we differ from MHP [Nationalist Movement Party]. But ultimately, we entered elections together within the same alliance, under the umbrella of the People's Alliance. Now you saw on October 1 those who directed very harsh criticism at each other or strongly criticized our being side by side with Mr. Bahceli in Malazgirt. For example, during Eid-related visits, MHP and DEM Party went and exchanged holiday greetings with each other. What happened? Did MHP ideologically approach the DEM Party, or did the DEM Party become like MHP? Which one? I think neither.
Ocalan had once described you, Huda Par, as the MHP of the Kurds.
I don't take what Ocalan says very seriously. When we founded Huda Par, Ocalan was talking as if we knew each other very well and were military buddies: 'They don't even have money to go eat at a restaurant, how did they found a party?' So sometimes he talks like that. Sometimes it's not very clear what he's saying. In fact, he makes a very special and intense effort so that it's not understood…
People criticize your party about Rojava (northeast Syria). Of course, no one can say anything about your sensitivity about Gaza, but it is thought that you remain silent about Rojava. Your lack of any statement or evaluation of the situation when attacks happened in Afrin is criticized.
We have hundreds of statements about Rojava, about Afrin, or about events happening in other parts of Syria. But unfortunately, we encounter such things a lot. We say something, three days later, a week later, a month later, someone says why don't you have a statement about such and such issue? Well, we did. 'But I didn't see it,' they say. What can we do?
Now some also compare this. Look, what is happening in Gaza cannot be compared with what is happening anywhere else in the world. For example, they say 'that place is under occupation, Palestine is under occupation, isn't the place where you live, Kurdistan, also under occupation?' Who is occupying Kurdistan? There were conflicts in Rojava. Equating the conflicts in Rojava with the genocide in Gaza is, first of all, an insult to justice. This cannot happen.
But we've been saying that from the beginning. They say 'you held a rally for Gaza but not for Rojava. You didn't do anything for Rojava.' Those who killed Yasin Boru and his friends, who were taking sacrificial meat to Rojava so that people who escaped from Rojava, from the oppression there, from the massacre there, wouldn't go hungry, in the most savage way the world could see, tell us what did you do for Rojava? [ *Editor's note: Boru was killed in 2014 during Kobane protests while reportedly taking food to people in Rojava].
What did you do other than talk? You just talked. We held their hands. We also talked. We also said that the massacres were oppression. But we didn't just talk, we didn't just talk. We actually tried to hold the hands of our brothers there. But maybe we couldn't advertise it as much as they did. They did nothing. They just talked and constantly told us that we didn't do anything. But comparing the two with each other is not something my conscience, my humanity can bear. How can you equate what happened in Rojava, what happened in Diyarbakir, and what happened in Gaza?
What do you suggest for Rojava? Would you have attended if you had been invited to the conference in Qamishli? And what is your view on the autonomy demand that emerged there?
As I said earlier, people everywhere know their own conditions and situations better. We respect the decisions they have made about their own situations. Of course, we may have suggestions.
You said you would attend, right, if you had been invited to Qamishli?
Of course. But we don't see ourselves as having the right to make decisions on their behalf. Look, for example, at that time some were defining us as enemy brothers, but we also warned the PYD [Democratic Union Party]. We said, right now America is giving you weapons, giving you direction. Don't think America is your friend… If America and Turkey agree one day, they will spend you like coins. Be aware of this, know this.
For example, when an autonomous structure was formed in Rojava, they took people's children and raised them according to what? They injected their own ideology into them. They took the Muslim's child and made them atheist. This is oppression. Now what will happen there? Right now, people there, people in Syria should know that the situation there will be shaped according to the agreement that America and Turkey will reach.
After all, there is a Kurdish administration there. Today, an agreement was reached with other parties too.
Is it a Kurdish administration or a PYD administration?
With the conference in Qamishli, ENKS was also included. Doesn't this reassure you?
I don't know. Time will tell. Before, when the events first started there, ENKS was there too, meetings were held. They came together in Dohuk. Then when power fell into someone's hands, what happened? If there is a practice, I said something earlier; when discussing the Kurdish issue, don't build the future on the past but don't forget the past either. If you forget the past, what happened in the past can happen again and again in the future. There are past experiences. Where did the Roj Peshmerga go, where did they stay, why couldn't they return? Leaders of some parties there were killed in assassinations. Some were exiled abroad. When those exiled abroad wanted to return there, their way was blocked. These are experienced realities. Hopefully they won't repeat in the future. People there, in general, make decisions about their future. What did they want, which governance model did they want, they should decide on this. But they should be able to decide freely, not imposed by someone under the shadow of weapons.
Do you have an exchange of views with the government about Turkey establishing relations and making it a livable place for everyone?
We said not just now but in the previous period too, and we said that Kurds there are oppressed. During the Bashar al-Assad period, a significant portion didn't even have identity cards. We told Turkey 'You have both historical ties and millions of Kurdish citizens within Turkey, and almost all of those there are relatives of Kurds living here. Borders were drawn in such a way, and these borders were not drawn by the will of the people living here. So much so that the father stayed on one side, the son on the other. The mother stayed on one side, her daughter on the other. The coop stayed on one side, the chicken on the other, the cow stayed on one side, the calf on the other. Such injustices happened. Therefore, half of the family is on one side, half on the other. See this reality and extend your hand of brotherhood to the people there accordingly. Know that they are your brothers. In fact, as a strong country in the region, be their protector. Not just Kurds in Syria, but also for the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.'
Again, one of the issues our brothers there [Kurdistan Region] raised in negotiations is this. They say 'We have two pipes. One is the breathing pipe, the other is the food pipe. Both pass through Turkey.' We also told the government at the time: 'They [Kurdistan Region] say we want to improve our relations with Ankara and see them rather than seeing the Baghdad government and Tehran. Show them that you are brothers, make them feel it and fulfill the requirements of that brotherhood. You won't lose from this.' We constantly say the same thing. Here, on your program, we have repeated this once again.
Ocalan also proposes a formula where Kurds, Arabs, Persians and Turks can live together with a supra-national formula, a brotherhood law.
Is that so? I don't know.
At least that's the discourse.
That's the discourse… Actually, Abdullah Ocalan says 'I have surpassed [Karl] Marx too, now I am your new ideologue, the whole world will find peace in my ideology. You will get to know me better. I will bring peace to the whole world. That's why you should get to know the Apoist spirit well, understand it and apply it, your salvation is in it.' And this is as far from us as black is from white.
Your concrete proposal is a formula for living together with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Kurds and other elements of those countries, based on maintaining current situations.
No, not just maintaining current situations. We say that no system, no model is taboo. For example, until 150 years ago, kingdoms were accepted as the most perfect system, right?
They collapsed and went.
What happened? Now no one is in favor of kingdoms. In fact, everyone complains about kingdoms. A model that seemed very good for a period. Maybe kingdoms could be the best in the conditions of that period. Since I didn't live in that period, I can't know as well as people who lived in that period. Maybe after a while, the needs of the age will change, people will think of new things, suggest new things. We also say when talking about the constitution, let's not make the constitution rigid. This system may seem very good to you today. It may even seem perfect. But after all, something that is human speech, even if it seems perfect, gets old over time. Therefore, there may be autonomous regions for one place. In some places, there may be a federative structure. In some places, there may be corporate federalism, as in Belgium.
There are certainly female politicians in Huda Par, but are they in a more invisible area?
No, they are also in the visible area. We have female members of the general administrative board, we have a female deputy chairman. We had female parliamentary candidates, mayoral candidates, city council member candidates. But we don't give someone a duty just because she is a woman, based on quotas. Or we don't refrain from giving someone a duty just because she is a woman: you are a woman, you can't have a say in the party's administration, you can't take a duty, we don't have such a position. But you are a woman, we have this much gap, come even if you can't do this job just because you are a woman, come stand in the showcase, we don't do that either.
Especially with being in the People's Alliance, you also have some advantageous situations in the region and bureaucracy. What do you propose in terms of political economy? For example, what is Huda Par's economic policy regarding Kurdish workers and the Kurdish poor?
A worker is a worker, and a poor person is poor. We don't separate as Kurdish, Turkish, Arab, Laz, Circassian. After all, we say that labor should be given its due. We say that the worker's right should be given in full before their sweat dries. Unfortunately, in the current system, the system always works against the low-income and the poor. For example, we have been saying this for years, we said it's not right to tax someone on minimum wage. People pay taxes again when they spend what they earn. The minimum wage earner doesn't pay tax when earning but pays tax when spending. Those who earn a lot should pay a lot, those who earn little should pay little. In fact, we say those who don't have the power to pay taxes shouldn't pay any taxes at all. We persistently say this…