By Dilar Dirik:

The Kurdish people have come a long way in asserting their identity. Through constant activism, we have come from a time when most people didn’t even know about the existence of Kurds, to a stage at which the world discusses the various ways in which the Kurds may transform the Middle East. This is a striking development, even though the long-silent global media really does not deserve much credit…

After an extremely intense year in the war between the PKK and the Turkish state, after the hunger strike of thousands of Kurdish political prisoners in Turkey last fall, after the remarkable developments in Rojava (West Kurdistan/Syria), after the insidious murder of three brilliant women – Sakine Cansiz, Fidan Dogan, and Leyla Saylemez – in Paris this January, and after Abdullah Öcalan’s historic Newroz message last week, the global media has increased its focus on the Kurdish people. Shall we say, “better late than never”?

Non-Kurdish people who stand in international solidarity with the Kurds in their human rights struggle play an important role in the fight for freedom, and they all enjoy a special place in our hearts. There are many Europeans, among others, who attend every demonstration with us, represent us in parliaments, write brochures, publish books, start campaigns, sign and distribute petitions, organize platforms to raise awareness of the Kurdish struggle and more. They know who they are and they know how much we appreciate and love them.

However, there are also certain career-motivated individuals who seem to see the Kurds as a means to an end to propose themselves as so-called “Kurdish experts”, in a sadly arrogant, orientalist manner. A critical reading of such journalists, bloggers, and authors can expose extremely bold and presumptuous attitudes. Even the expression “Kurdish expert” should strike one as odd. In my personal opinion, nobody can be an expert, as much as those that have suffered the harassment, torture, prisons, and personal losses in the homelands. And those people don’t even care for the recognition that so-called “Kurdish experts” feel entitled to. Only those who know what it means to fear for one’s life for claiming one’s identity can be real “Kurdish experts”, because they have felt the war, have been part of the war. Emotionality, subjectivity, personal experience don’t serve positivist ways of understanding, but that does not matter in a war that is made up of millions of painful personal realities and truths.

More and more often, we come across these self-entitled “Kurdish experts” that do not seem to be aware of their condescending attitude when reporting about the Kurds, and unfortunately, we can expect more of that kind to emerge in the future. Even if these present themselves as wanting to “help” the Kurds, their often Western-centric, patronizing tones completely defeat this purpose. The Kurds have been widely ignored by the international press and academia, which is why it seems easy for some to establish a monopoly of knowledge on the Kurds and to pass as “Kurdish experts”. Language is another important factor. While I struggled to find English sources for my Master’s dissertation last year, I could feel the quality difference between well-researched sources published by Kurds, unknown to the world, and poorly-written English works by foreign analysts, which were, for the lack of more English sources credited as “pioneer” works, regardless of their shortcomings. Such assertions of scrappy “expertise” ignore the highly sophisticated work of Kurdish activists, journalists, political prisoners, politicians, authors, teachers and intellectuals, who are personally and academically far more equipped to provide a perspective on issues concerning the Kurds, “even if” their work isn’t available in English. Of course everyone should be encouraged to learn about, advocate for, and contribute to the Kurdish people’s struggle, but this must not happen in an ignorant, arrogant, Western-centric fashion.

It is rather upsetting to consider how many journalists in Turkey alone have been assassinated for writing about the Kurds – and then we have condescending European and American individuals on the other hand, who try ridiculously hard to establish themselves as “experts”, who patronize the Kurdish people, believing to do them a favor with their mind-numbing opinions, at very sensitive times, as if anyone relied on such pretentious “expertise”. Proposing a perspective or opinion in a knowledgeable way is another matter, snobbishly insisting on being an expert of Kurds is another. The human rights cause of oppressed people should not become a source of exploitation to further one’s career.

I may sound exclusivistic, but this is by no means what I intend to be. My criticism is directed at those that seem to look down on the Kurdish people in their culturally insensitive, often groundless analyses. I really appreciate the increased discourse over the situation of the Kurds, but I strongly suggest that people who advertize themselves as Kurdish experts be more respective, knowledgeable, sensitive, and much less condescending in their claims. There is a great difference between the great individuals who genuinely support the Kurds, respect our demands, and communicate with us on the same eye level, and certain personalities who patronize the Kurds, speak on our behalf, as though we were incapable of deciding for ourselves, in our seemingly perpetual state of false consciousness. Even if they are not fully aware of this, the latter often suggest that we don’t have an educated opinion on our own cause, that they know better what is good for us. Such approaches completely disrespect all the academics, protesters, political prisoners, journalists and activists, all Kurds that dedicated their lives to contributing to this human rights struggle.

Those that do not respect the clear demands of the Kurds, who pick between their good Kurds and bad Kurds, between those that they can reconcile with their preset notions of right and wrong, who don’t bother reading up on the endless material that is provided by Kurdish organizations, who presume that their position as privileged outsiders equips them with more critical thinking by default, must refrain from ridiculing a movement that does not affect their own lives. What seems to be a fun hobby or source of money for some, is a life or death issue for others. Especially behind the backdrop of the extreme sensitivity that is required for the current peace process in Turkey, everyone must be careful with their expressions. There are many things that the public does not know, and assuming is very dangerous when shaping public opinion, especially if one publicly shares their speculative thoughts with thousands of people.

So here I suggest a (by no means exhaustive) list of things for aspiring “Kurdish experts” to consider:

Do not apply your own cultural context to the Kurds.

What may be valid in the United States for example must be considered in the political, social, economic, historic, and cultural framework of the United States. Generalizing one nation’s experience to other contexts is doomed to fail. The situation of Kurds is unique, so is their culture and struggle. Keep that in mind.

Do not consider the “Kurdish question” in Turkey as a terrorism issue.

The Turkish state, which has long insisted on not wanting to negotiate with “terrorists”, now sits on a negotiation table with the PKK. Used up sentences such as “40.000 people have been killed since the PKK took up arms against the Turkish state” in almost every single article relating to the Kurds in Turkey are extremely inadequate, as they don’t provide any contextual background. How much has the Turkish state terror contributed to such a high death poll? Which human rights abuses, assimilation and annihilation policies have caused the PKK to take up arms against the Turkish state? The “Kurdish question” is not a “terrorism”, but primarily a human rights issue.

Related to this is the idea of “Kurdish nationalism”. The Kurdish movement cannot be classified as a nationalist ambition. The definition of nationalism implies certain power relations and a sense of superiority of one’s nation over others; it is a chauvinistic notion that was manifested in many ways in past century’s Europe for example. The Kurds’ struggle to liberate themselves from the oppressive structures of four different countries hardly falls under that category. It can be defined as “national”, not “nationalist”.

Use reliable and recent sources.

Just a few days ago on Nuce TV, Kurdish academics were discussing the issues of “Kurdish experts”, who for instance, use outdated information or informal brochures to conceptualize “Kurdish interests” or unreliable sources by the Turkish government, who have a monolithic view on the Kurds and cannot overcome paradigm frameworks that they have been raised in. In order to enhance debates, it is extremely important to keep an open mind, talk to Kurds, and read a variety of Kurdish sources, especially recent ones. It is shocking how often one comes across articles that insist that the PKK “demands a separate state”. This demand has been given up a long time ago! Those that want to have any serious say on Öcalan and the PKK, must –at the very least- read Öcalan’s “Road Map to Negotiations”.

Stop the patronizing tone and respect Kurdish demands instead.

There is a massive amount of intellectualism in all parts of Kurdistan. Even if this may not necessarily be represented in accepted, official institutions, the knowledge of many people is based on direct political experience, years of struggle, and vibrant thought exchanges in torture dungeons. Nobody is in need of heroic saviors from far away to tell us what to think or demand. The Kurds are politically conscious people that are well able to speak for themselves.

For instance, if millions of Kurds subscribe to the PKK, it is not up to someone who is not affected by this war, to decide whether this is good or bad. This is a reality. The fact that the hunger strike of thousands of people was ended by Öcalan’s call is a reality. His influence over a big movement, in spite of 14 years of imprisonment, is a reality. This is most Kurdish people in Turkey and the diaspora’s conscious preference. Selecting one’s favorite elements of the Kurdish movement is not an honest way of approaching this struggle. Shedding crocodile tears after the assassination of three wonderful women in Paris, but at the same time rejecting the goals these women dedicated their lives to, makes you lose credibility. Applauding the huge crowds at this year’s Newroz celebrations, but rejecting these millions of Kurds’ demand to free Öcalan is a contradiction. If the vast majority of civil and militant Kurds, their parliamentary representatives, and even the Turkish government chose Öcalan as the Kurds’ representative and negotiation partner with the state, then the world must acknowledge and respect this. If all parties involved place this much importance on Öcalan, is it really in a careerist foreign blogger’s competence to reject this?

Another point that I have a strong personal concern for are the ways in which Kurdish guerrilla women are manipulatively portrayed by the media. The existence of female guerrilla fighters is a natural reality of life that most Kurds grew up with. However, the world only now comes to realize the strong role of women in the Kurdish liberation movement (again, better late than never?). I painfully regret that this sudden realization only happened after three of our precious friends have been assassinated in Paris. Most articles that deal with the Kurdish women guerrilla fighters are the most simplified, narrow-minded, and orientalistic pieces of writings that I have ever come across. Instead of trying to understand the cultural revolution that the highly respected guerrilla women constitute in an otherwise feudal, patriarchal society, many reporters fall for the same used up categories of “oppressed women” and “terrorist” and refer to the same one or two outdated Turkish sources. Claiming that women join the guerrilla because they would otherwise face a victimized life full of honor killings and child marriage is a great distortion of facts. For instance, all three women who have been viciously murdered in Paris were completely supported by their parents. Their families are proud of them and their struggle; none of them was forced to escape a life that the world seems to assign to the concept of poor, beaten-up Kurdish women.

There are many guerrilla women who are university graduates, many who join from European countries – right now, Arab women join the Kurdish YPG forces in Syria. The vast majority of Kurdish women join the guerrilla out of conviction, of a desire to fight oppression. Of course there are some girls and women who join the mountains, because they don’t enjoy a self-determined life at home. But why doesn’t the media ask WHY these women in these cases find the freedom that they otherwise don’t have in their lives – in the guerrilla? Also, which socio-economic and political factors perpetuated by the Turkish state have contributed to a woman’s situation in which she feels that she has to decide between her civil life in oppression or life as a guerrilla fighter? Women in the PKK are some of the brightest minds one will ever came across, which is why painfully simplified and distorted articulations of such a complex issue are really upsetting. Falling for old Turkish state propaganda which has often referred to PKK women as prostitutes, confused victims, or easy recruits is the worst journalistic fraud I can imagine.

If you don’t understand, please don’t pretend like you do.

The current developments especially in Turkey and Syria require crucial sensitivity. If a peace process is to happen, reconciliation will be vital. It is unbelievably hard for Kurds that have endured decades of pain to forget the harm caused by the Turkish state. Similarly, families of young Turkish soldiers that died in war need time to heal. Nobody needs to rub salt in the wound; everyone affected by this war knows these pains too well. Verbally provoking one side or the other does not help the issue. Surely, criticism and skepticism are important; nobody should have to censor themselves or leave things unquestioned. It is more than natural to be skeptical of the current peace process – I am too-, but in order to express a valid, educated position, it is not enough to carelessly throw one’s groundless opinion around, especially when one has a respectably large audience. Critical observation of developments and a solid understanding of the past and present, a consideration of international and national political factors, and respect for the demands of a long-oppressed people are the most basic criteria to voice a serious perspective. For example, the peace process is not unilaterally supported by the Kurds, because they are deluded, naïve, and blindfolded by Öcalan (as some “experts” indirectly claim), or because they suddenly trust the AKP because they are told to, but because they want the bloodshed to end, because they trust the signs that are in favor of the Kurds.

We support the process, not because we trust the regime, but because the guerrilla’s military successes, the hunger strike, the Paris murders, Newroz, and perhaps most importantly, the unpredictable situation in Syria, among other factors (some of which are not public), have put the state into a position in which it is forced to negotiate. International attention is not to be underestimated either. Many news outlets express that it is up to the Turkish state to make the next step in this process now. At least, with this much global observation, the formal pressure on the state is considerable. We are likely to see positive changes in favor of the Kurds soon, the release of more political prisoners within the KCK trials, is one example. But we cannot expect everything to happen at once; especially constitutional amendments could take a while. We can also expect more racist attacks on Kurds to occur, a few more people to be imprisoned, as the state may want to assert some force, in order not to look weak, in spite of its back-to-wall situation (after all, it is not a sudden change of heart of the AKP that lead to this process). The war may even re-escalate, if things go wrong. Anything is possible, but making definite claims despite huge knowledge gaps, ignoring defining factors and attributing the Kurdish hopes to blind naivety is plain wrong and underestimates the power of the Kurdish political struggle that has manifested itself in outstanding ways in the past year and which has brought about this situation.

Further, the cease fire announcement is just the first step in a long process, and is not to be understood as “peace” in a meaningful sense yet. There is no need to get ahead of ourselves by hoping for a sudden constitutional revolution or to denounce the positive developments so far. Expecting to see “democratic confederalism” in Turkey overnight would be extremely unrealistic, since this is just the beginning of a new stage. A democratic, constitutional framework, such as the redefinition of “terrorism” in Turkey, among other guarantees must be met by the state before the PKK will withdraw. This can only happen step by step. We can all agree that the prospect of no bloodshed for a while is better than anything else that happened in the past year. Many, myself included, trust the judgment of Kurdish activists and politicians that have endured tortures, imprisonments and unbelievable personal losses and who yet support the process. They know exactly what they are doing and what is at stake. Sakine Cansiz was one of these supporters, a person who has given endless sacrifices on her way. In the words of a former guerrilla fighter who critically watches and supports this process: “Of all of you, I know best what war is like. And war is a terrible thing”. Such experienced people who have risked their lives in this struggle are far more qualified to provide a meaningful analysis than egocentric journalists who cannot even begin to seize the dimensions of this conflict. Why these “Kurdish experts” that I am referring to, accuse the Kurds – who have strong reasons to hope for a better future – of blind obedience, do not bother to engage with press statements and news articles of respected personalities of the Kurdish struggle, pick and choose between facts that suit them, and yet seem to believe themselves to be the sole ones to accurately assess the developments, is yet another mystery…

To those that present themselves as “Kurdish experts” and yet look down on Kurdish interests, demands, and loyalties, there is nothing left to say other than: Nobody needs your opinion!

This may sound rude, but I doubt that anyone cares for people who cannot leave their Western sense of entitlement to authority and monopoly on truth at home, while pretending to support the Kurdish people. They may just find another hobby to entertain themselves with, instead of looking down on us. One thing for Kurds to bear in mind is that we must be more confident in our own analyses, instead of submitting to those that want us to believe that they know our problems better than us, by virtue of their privileged background. After all, we are the subjects of this war. I hope that more vibrant and hopefully more culturally sensitive and respectful discussions on the Kurds and Turkey will emerge, and that those careerists that seem to enjoy their fame as “Kurdish experts” calm a bit down. I hope this little guide makes them reconsider their tone. Supporting Kurds means listening to Kurds, respecting them. It does not mean to impose one’s opinion on them. As I said, there are enough Kurds that are the best experts of their own struggle. We wouldn’t have come this far without amazing international solidarity, however, we do not need anyone to speak on our behalf…

Copyright © 2013 Kurdistantribune.com