[Centraal] Turkse strijd tegen IS & PKK #8

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 19:44 schreef primakov het volgende:
Alsof de strijd tegen IS ook maar enigszins serieuze vormen aanneemt

twitter:

HasanSari7 twitterde op dinsdag 29-09-2015 om 18:50:59 💥 URGENT:PKK bomb attack kills 2 soldiers in Turkey's southeast Hakkari province http://t.co/0RIz4KRVBX #TwitterKurds #PKK #Turkey" reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 20:02 schreef Triggershot het volgende:
Kom dan zelf met een goede TT.

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 19:44 schreef primakov het volgende:
Alsof de strijd tegen IS ook maar enigszins serieuze vormen aanneemt

twitter:

HasanSari7 twitterde op dinsdag 29-09-2015 om 18:55:31 💥 #Turkish military deploys tank convoy to #Diyarbakır amidst curfew http://t.co/r5HoN33MBN http://t.co/kJMLtUDtjl #Turkey" reageer retweet

dogu illerine tank sevkiyati batı illerindeki tanklar doğuya

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 20:13 schreef W.H.I.S.T.L.E het volgende:
Mooie wegen man, heeft AKP dat gedaan?

Batıdan doğuya tank sevkıyatı yapılıyor

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 20:14 schreef UpsideDown het volgende:

[..]

Mag allemaal wat kosten die burgeroorlog, geld speelt geen rol zo te zien

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 20:13 schreef W.H.I.S.T.L.E het volgende:
Mooie wegen man, heeft AKP dat gedaan?

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 20:15 schreef W.H.I.S.T.L.E het volgende:

[..]

Zijn deze tanks tegen de pkk of voor gebruik in Syrië?

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 20:15 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Ja, de AKP is een goede Bob de Bouwer.

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 20:24 schreef Triggershot het volgende:

[..]

Wel een beetje in perspectief plaatsen he, Nederland is al eeuwen een van de rijkste landen ter wereld, nu nog op nummer 5/6 dacht ik, nog geen 2 decennia geleden zat Turkije te smeken om 1 miljard dollar.

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 20:12 schreef UpsideDown het volgende:

twitter:

HasanSari7 twitterde op dinsdag 29-09-2015 om 18:55:31 💥 #Turkish military deploys tank convoy to #Diyarbakır amidst curfew http://t.co/r5HoN33MBN http://t.co/kJMLtUDtjl #Turkey" reageer retweet

[ afbeelding ]
[ afbeelding ]

dogu illerine tank sevkiyati batı illerindeki tanklar doğuya

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 20:13 schreef W.H.I.S.T.L.E het volgende:
Mooie wegen man, heeft AKP dat gedaan?

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 20:15 schreef Beathoven het volgende:

[..]

Ja, de AKP is een goede Bob de Bouwer.

Op de onderwijsinstelling waar ik werkte was 't tegen 't einde allemaal Akp. De rektor, de decaan.. Alles van top tot teen in de leiding. Alles wat CHP steunde ging eruit.

En toen ging het ineens niet meer over onderwijs en programmas maar over bouwplannen voor een gigantische kantine, een mooi hek, een mooi nieuw gebouw hier en daar. Hele groene campus naar de kloten.

quote:

Op woensdag 30 september 2015 17:22 schreef Triggershot het volgende:

[..]

Damn WW, hoeveel details kan je opzettelijk achterwege laten zeg.

quote:

Op woensdag 30 september 2015 17:31 schreef Triggershot het volgende:

[..]

Op FOK! wordt je huis / werk niet bestormd he.

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 september 2015 20:13 schreef Triggershot het volgende:

[..]

- Eerste zou kunnen, maar denkt de lading niet mbt de OP en hoe het begon.
- Burgeroorlog
- Zou kunnen.
- Lijkt me meer wat voor POL, weinig relevantie om dan de Koerdische positie hier te bespreken.

quote:

Op donderdag 1 oktober 2015 10:14 schreef Che_ het volgende:

[..]

Turkse strijd tegen IS, haha.

W..

C E N S U U R

😂

quote:

Talking to reporters in New York over the weekend prior to addressing the UN General Assembly, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu made remarks that clearly indicated Ankara is not on the verge of a major policy change on Syria, despite recent speculation to that effect. His statements also suggested that Turkey will remain at odds with Washington and Moscow over priorities in Syria and how to proceed with regard to the future of President Bashar al-Assad.

Davutoglu also admitted, in effect, why Turkey had decided to take part in US-led airstrikes against the Islamic State (IS), using words that indicate that Ankara’s thinking had more to do with preventing further advances by the Syrian Kurds than with fighting IS.

Davutoglu also clarified Ankara’s position on whether Assad has any role to play in a settlement. A recent remark by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan following his talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow were taken as a sign that Ankara may be changing tack in this regard.

“We can have a process without Assad, or something like going with Assad during a transition period,” Erdogan told reporters in Istanbul when asked about his discussion with Putin on Sept. 23.

Davutoglu repeated Ankara’s demand that Assad be kept out of any negotiations. This was not a rare moment of disagreement between Erdogan and Davutoglu, since Erdogan had also back-paddled on this issue by then, underlining the fact that Ankara’s position on the Syrian leader has not changed.

Davutoglu’s overall remarks about Syria, nevertheless, showed that his government will continue chasing what many at this stage believe are pipe dreams. A case in point was his call on the European Union to finance a plan by Turkey to set up three cities in a safe zone to be declared in northern Syria, adjacent to Turkey, to house Syrian refugees.

The People's Protection Units (YPG), the armed wing of the Democratic Union Party (PYD) — which has become the umbrella organization of Syrian groups — is poised to capture the region Davutoglu referred to from IS, according to reports in the international press.

Turkey says the PYD and YPG are terrorist organizations affiliated with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Washington has also declared the PKK a terrorist group, but has made clear it has no intention of doing the same for the PYD or YPG.

The prospects of the Kurds gaining a contiguous region in northern Syria along the Turkish border that also has access to northern Iraq is a nightmare scenario for Ankara, given its large and restive Kurdish minority. Turkey has been accused of trying to prevent this development by assisting radical Islamic groups against the Syrian Kurds.

Ankara’s failure to assist the Kurds besieged by IS in Kobani last year not only agitated its own Kurds, but also cost much in terms of international sympathy for Erdogan, whose pronouncements at the time were considered anti-Kurdish.

Much to Ankara’s annoyance, the PYD and PYG have become key allies of the US-led coalition, providing them with much-needed ground forces against IS and displaying their military capabilities. Few diplomats believe that Washington will give up on the Syrian Kurds at this stage in deference to Turkey, especially when doubts continue to linger about Turkey’s true intentions in Syria.

The following is what Davutoglu told reporters in New York, and a brief analysis of his remarks:

“The PYD gets its arms and human resources from the PKK in the Qandil Mountains in Iraq, and there is interaction among them. It is also in competition with [Iraqi Kurdish leader] Massoud Barzani and is trying to establish a region for itself. We spoiled this game by our decision to mount operations on July 23, and joined the coalition against [IS]. By mounting operations against [IS] and the PKK at the same time, we also prevented the PKK from legitimizing itself. Until the PYD changes its stance, we will continue to see it in the same way that we see the PKK.”

These remarks by Davutoglu reinforce the belief in Turkey and abroad that Ankara joined the fight against IS not because of the massacre perpetrated by this group in July in the Turkish town of Suruc, but to use the cover of these operations to upset the PYD’s plans.

Davutoglu also admitted in this way that another aim was to prevent the PKK from raising its profile in Western eyes with its contributions against IS. These remarks will increase doubts about Turkey’s determination to fight IS. Such doubts are already prevalent because of the large number of airstrikes by Turkish jets against PKK targets in Iraq, contrasting sharply with the relatively few operations it has participated in against IS.

“We told Europe that Turkey will not become a concentration camp. We have the capacity to establish three container cities to house 100,000 people each, or even lasting cities in the region between Jarablus and Azaz. The EU can bear the cost while we do the building.”

Davutoglu is in effect repeating Turkey’s call for a safe zone to be established in the area, with the new idea of building three cities there. He is clearly trying to capitalize on the refugee pressure on Europe to recruit EU support for this project.

Western countries, while paying some lip service to Turkey’s call for a safe zone, have so far made it clear they will not participate in establishing this zone or provide the boots on the ground necessary to protect it. Meanwhile, Russia remains strongly opposed to the idea, arguing that it violates Syrian sovereignty. It is not clear how Ankara hopes to succeed in this project, given Western reluctance and Russia’s opposition.

Davutoglu’s remarks are also likely to feed suspicions that Turkey’s main aim here is to prevent the Syrian Kurds from gaining this territory. It is clear, however, that if Ankara can sell this idea to the international community, it would also alleviate Turkey’s refugee problem. But the whole question remains a moot point for now.

“We will accept anything the Syrians accept, but it is not possible for the Syrians to accept a settlement that includes Assad. We have decided that a settlement with Assad will not work and are maintaining our position on this. [IS'] presence is helping Assad, and Assad’s presence is helping [IS]. Russia’s decision to establish an air force unit to help Assad and to provide assistance in other ways is also a source of concern.”

These remarks show that Turkey is not prepared at this stage to change its position on Syria and come more in line with what Moscow and Washington are saying. Turkey has already made known its concerns about Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent remarks, in which he indicated that Assad’s departure was not an immediate precondition for a settlement in Syria.

The problem for Turkey, however, is that it is insisting on maintaining a policy that has not only accomplished little to date but has also failed to prevent things it does not want to see emerge in Syria. Analysts point out that Ankara is refusing to recalibrate its Syria policy even though it has no say over developments, or the necessary power to achieve the results it wants.

Soli Ozel, a lecturer in international relations at Istanbul’s Kadir Has University and a columnist for Haberturk, characterizes Turkey’s overall Middle East policy as a “fiasco.” He believes that Ankara’s failure to accept reality, continuing instead to insist on failed positions as if they had any value left, is actually a cover to shroud its helplessness in the face of developments it cannot control.

“It is clear that the Davutoglu government has lost its compass in Syria at a time when the world is searching for alternative means to solve the crisis. What is worrying is that Ankara repeats its failed positions at important international forums, even though it has no capacity to make others listen or to get them to help it alter the course of events,” Ozel told Al-Monitor.

“The real aim here has more to do with domestic politics than foreign policy. Foreign policy continues to provide capital for the government in terms of domestic politics at a time when the country is heading for elections,” Ozel said.

quote:

Op vrijdag 2 oktober 2015 09:09 schreef Loekie1 het volgende:
Turkije is nu erg boos vanwege de Russische aanvallen.
In een gezamenlijke verklaring hebben Turkije en de door de Verenigde Staten geleide anti-IS coalitie hun “diepe bezorgdheid” geuit over de Russische luchtaanvallen in Syrië. Het leidt tot “verdere escalatie” van het conflict en wakkert het extremisme aan, zo meldt Reuters.
http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/(...)alatie-oorlog-syrie/

quote:

Op donderdag 1 oktober 2015 22:55 schreef primakov het volgende:
Turkey's Middle East policy 'fiasco'

[..]

Wehehe, die aanhalingstekens mogen eigenlijk wel weggelaten worden.

quote:

Op vrijdag 2 oktober 2015 09:22 schreef UpsideDown het volgende:

[..]

Hoe ironisch, zelf gooien ze ook alles plat in hun strijd tegen terrorisme.

twitter:

Conflicts twitterde op vrijdag 02-10-2015 om 10:47:39 VIDEO: Heavy fighting in Turkish city of #Silvan https://t.co/ghZuwejdIp reageer retweet

Silvan'da sokağa çıkma yasağı ilan edildi

twitter:

RT_com twitterde op vrijdag 02-10-2015 om 09:06:21 BREAKING: Turkish army, police enter Kurdish city of #Silvan - reports http://t.co/lQ2qz2uU6l (pic @RoyemMunzur) http://t.co/rRD19OvoMQ reageer retweet

quote:

Op vrijdag 2 oktober 2015 11:16 schreef UpsideDown het volgende:
Ik vraag mij af waarom de Turken telkens met oude rommel aan komen zetten, zelfs Syrië heeft betere tanks.

Silvan:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Op vrijdag 2 oktober 2015 11:16 schreef UpsideDown het volgende:
Ik vraag mij af waarom de Turken telkens met oude rommel aan komen zetten, zelfs Syrië heeft betere tanks.

Silvan:
[ afbeelding ]

quote:

Russia’s stepped-up military intervention in Syria is poised to dramatically alter balances in the war-wracked nation. The one group that benefited most from the upheaval is the Kurds, which have steadily expanded areas under their control and are now top allies of the United States in the fight against the Islamic State (IS), also known as Daesh. What impact will the Russian moves have on Syria’s Kurds? Al-Monitor put the question to Salih Muslim, co-chair of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), who is currently in northern Syria.

The text of the interview follows:

Al-Monitor: How does Russia’s military intervention in Syria affect the Kurds?

Muslim: We as the Democratic Union Party believe the following, and we have shared this view with the United States as well: We will fight alongside whoever fights Daesh. We will stand alongside whoever battles the Daesh mentality.

Al-Monitor: Russia also says that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad needs to remain in power and it is defending the regime.

Muslim: Russia sided with the regime from the very start. This is a separate matter. But as far as Assad remaining in power, we think differently. Assad cannot remain in power as before. He may stay on during a transition period, during a period of dialogue between the conflicting parties, but in the long term it seems inconceivable that the majority of the Syrian people would accept his leadership anymore.

Al-Monitor: But isn’t there a risk that the “transition period” could morph into a “permanent period”? Having achieved so many gains you would surely seek guarantees. Can Russia be a guarantor for the Kurds?

Muslim: We have had relations with Russia for the past three years. We go back and forth to Russia, to Moscow. But the regime cannot remain as is nor can we turn back the clock. The Kurds are a reality. And we are capable of defending ourselves against the regime and others. If there is to be a resolution to the Syrian crisis, it needs to incorporate the rights of the Kurds and all other ethnic and religious groups in Syria. This could be achieved under the auspices of the United Nations. Our democratic autonomy [the three Kurdish-controlled cantons in northern Syria] needs to be recognized. And if they are not, we shall continue with our struggle. If the Kurdish problem remains unresolved, the Syrian problem will remain unresolved. We have certain demands, a system in place. Any solution that is predicated on eradicating these is wrong and cannot work.

Al-Monitor: Do you believe that the Kurds could withstand Daesh without US military backing?

Muslim: Perhaps our casualties would be higher, but we would be able to resist nonetheless. Above all, we have faith in our own people and the justness of our cause.

Al-Monitor: Getting back to Russia, we are hearing reports that Russian planes are not just targeting Daesh but Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham as well. How will America respond, in your view?

Muslim: I don’t believe that America will object because [Jabhat] al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham are no different than Daesh. They are all terrorist organizations and share the same radical mentality. [Jabhat] al-Nusra is on the US [State Department’s] list of terrorist organizations. I don’t know if they will raise objections about Ahrar al-Sham, but they know who they are. There are no boundaries, no differences between the three groups. But if they were to be pushed out, the remaining opposition groups — which are very weak, including those that are fighting alongside us, that are attached to the Free Syrian Army — will be strengthened.

Al-Monitor: Do you believe Russia’s intervention will help bring the sides to the table or has it made things worse?

Muslim: Returning to the negotiating table seems hard. The plan devised by the UN’s Syria envoy, Staffan de Mistura, is backed most of all by Russia. But the opposite camp, meaning Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are resisting this [plan]. If the United States wants to pave the way for a solution, it must apply certain pressure on this camp. In any case, if there were not some kind of agreement between Russia and America, Russia would not have intervened in this way.

Al-Monitor: What do Russia’s moves spell for Turkey?

Muslim: Turkey’s Syrian policy is totally bankrupt. Two years ago I was talking to a Russian official and he asked me, “What do the Kurds most fear?” “Possible Turkish intervention,” I replied. He laughed and said, “That is not Turkey’s border [with Syria], but NATO’s,” to which I responded, “In that case you have given me relief, thank you.” Turkey cannot intervene in Syria without the blessings of the big powers.

Al-Monitor: And how will the “IS-free zone” that Turkey wants to establish west of the Euphrates River along the so-called Mare Line be affected by Russian intervention?

Muslim: Russia and the United States seem to have established their own zones of influence within Syria. The US is active in the north. The Russians will not meddle in the north. But should Turkey attempt to intervene, then they will. Russia has a joint defense agreement with Syria. They will prevent Turkish intervention not to defend us [Kurds] but to defend Syria’s border.

Al-Monitor: What are the prospects for cooperation between Turkey and the Rojava administration?

Muslim: Had Turkey taken the fight against IS seriously from the start, IS would not still be on Turkey’s borders. IS is massacring Kurds, forcibly evacuating the Kurds, burning their villages. Why is Turkey not doing anything; why is it unable to stop this? We have proposed to take care of it ourselves. Then why is Turkey standing in our way? You know there is this Turkmen brigade trained by Turkey called “Sultan” something or the other. They all defected to Daesh. It was a total fiasco.

Al-Monitor: Are you saying there is no hope for normalizing relations with Ankara?

Muslim: Should Turkey adopt a more moderate stand toward us, we as politicians are ready to talk and good things could ensue. But Turkish officials keep calling the PYD and the YPG [People's Protection Units] “terrorists.” What kind of terrorism have we engaged in?

Had they gone along with what we proposed to them two years ago [cooperation] everything might have been different today. Instead of coexisting fraternally, Turkey labels us enemies.

What we really want is to fight IS together with Turkey, America and the other coalition forces. Moreover, we are not opposed to a security zone. What we are opposed to is a Turkish-controlled security zone. The no-fly zones that were established in Iraq in 1992 could be applied in Syria as well. If the whole of northern Syria were under United Nations protection, we would feel more secure.

Al-Monitor: Aren’t the Kurdistan Workers Party's [PKK] recent attacks against Turkey leaving you in a precarious position? Although you argue that you are separate entities, you are both inspired by the PKK’s founder, Abdullah Ocalan.

Muslim: I don’t think it affects us militarily. We are separate organizations. But a resumption of the peace process in Turkey would be to the benefit of all. Any escalation of the conflict would be to the detriment of all. Aren’t the Kurds who embrace Apo’s [Abdullah Ocalan’s nickname] philosophy the ones who are the most effective fighting force against Daesh? When you attack them [the PKK], millions of Kurds feel they are being stabbed in the back. And they demand to know why the US and Europe are remaining silent. If they are serious about fighting Daesh, then wouldn’t they stop Turkey? There are such thoughts among the Kurds.

Meanwhile, a human tragedy is being played out. The body of Aziz Guler, a Turkish citizen who came to Rojava to fight IS, cannot be delivered to his family because Turkey won’t let it in. We cannot understand why. In the past, Turkish citizens who died in Rojava were handed over to their families and buried in their own country. This is no longer being allowed. Turkey has adopted this policy ever since the resumption of the conflict [with the PKK].

Al-Monitor: You have problems with the Kurdistan Regional Government [KRG] in Iraq. KRG President Massoud Barzani says that he will open logistical supply routes from his region to Rojava only if you allow Syrian Kurdish fighters from the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Syria [KDP-S] to return. You met with President Barzani in Erbil recently and American officials were present at the talks, but you were unable to solve the problem. Why not?

Muslim: There are no new developments regarding this matter. But here’s what we are proposing. If they [the KDP-S] are serious about defending the Kurds against Daesh, then they can come. Where is Daesh now? Between Jarablus and Azaz. Let them come and fight there. There is no Daesh left elsewhere in the Kurdish regions.

twitter:

MinPres twitterde op dinsdag 29-09-2015 om 19:51:29 Met Turkse premier @Ahmet_Davutoglu gesproken over conflict Syrië en vluchtelingenstromen. #UNGA http://t.co/dx2qnAf3ls reageer retweet

quote:

Op zaterdag 3 oktober 2015 00:35 schreef Cubs het volgende:

twitter:

MinPres twitterde op dinsdag 29-09-2015 om 19:51:29 Met Turkse premier @Ahmet_Davutoglu gesproken over conflict Syrië en vluchtelingenstromen. #UNGA http://t.co/dx2qnAf3ls reageer retweet

Wie neemt nou zijn hoofd-inlichtingendienst mee naar general assembly?

quote:

Op zaterdag 3 oktober 2015 00:36 schreef Slayage het volgende:

[..]

ahmet natuurlijk!

twitter:

de_hofnar twitterde op dinsdag 29-09-2015 om 19:56:09 @MinPres Een Turk met een Twitter account? Mag datwel van hunzelf? #durftevragen reageer retweet

quote:

A note to Turkey’s prime minister, among others: winning elections is not enough

“BUT I’ve won three elections!” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s embattled prime minister, growls at his critics. On the face of it, his case is compelling: surely, many people in Turkey and beyond would agree, popularly elected leaders can govern as they please? That’s what democracy means.

Well, no. Majoritarianism—the credo of an expanding group of elected but autocratic rulers around the world, which holds that electoral might always makes you right—is not true democracy, even if, on the face of it, the two things look alike. It is worth explaining why.

In this section


To begin with, democratic legitimacy isn’t merely a correlative of a ruler’s share of the vote. Few candidates in the West nowadays win more than half of the votes, still less a majority of the electorate. Most are obliged to govern with slim electoral mandates. That doesn’t, of itself, make them illegitimate. Indeed, huge landslides of the kind “won” by, say, Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus are often undemocratic. They tend to be achieved fraudulently; even when they are not, they can be precursors to persecution by the regal “victor” of opponents or to triumphal overreach, as in the case of Viktor Orban, Hungary’s authoritarian prime minister. Mr Erdogan’s party took almost 50% of the vote at Turkey’s 2011 election: impressive, but not absolute proof of democratic virtue.

If broad support does not automatically qualify a leader as a democrat, nor does strong opposition disqualify him. Margaret Thatcher’s reforms were contentious, to say the least. The heat and vitriol of politics have intensified in the Fox News, shock-jock, bile-blogging era: Barack Obama is often lambasted as tyrannical or traitorous. Tough decisions, such as spending cuts or tax rises, can provoke widespread anger, as the past few years have demonstrated. Bold reforms, which The Economist applauds, often do the same. That doesn’t make the leaders who impose them undemocratic, either.

The issue is how the relationship between supporters and opponents is managed. In part this is a matter of rules and institutions to constrain a leader’s power and to allow the aggrieved to find redress. These should include a robust account of citizens’ basic rights, independent courts to enforce them and free media to monitor them. From a democratic perspective, these are the areas where Mr Erdogan has most seriously erred: not in introducing controversial or wrong-headed policies (that is his prerogative), but in capturing the courts, silencing media critics and attacking peaceful protesters. His talk of tinkering with the constitution to perpetuate his own rule, as both Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Russia’s Vladimir Putin did, is another warning sign.

Beyond documents and institutions, the difference between crass majoritarianism and democracy resides in the heads of the mighty. Democrats have a bedrock understanding that the minority (or often majority) who did not vote for them are as much citizens of their country as those who did, and are entitled to a respectful hearing; and that a leader’s job is to deliberate and act in the national interests, not just those of his supporters. Turkey’s protesters took to the streets because they believed Mr Erdogan was not just hostile to their interests but deaf to their complaints. By demonising them as terrorists and foreign agents, and pulverising them with tear gas and water cannon, he has vindicated this belief. The contrast with Brazil, where Dilma Rousseff has insisted that demonstrators have a right to protest, is striking (see article).

Heartless

The basic idea of a democracy is that the voters should pick a government, which rules as it chooses until they see fit to chuck it out. But although voting is an important democratic right, it is not the only one. And winning an election does not entitle a leader to disregard all checks on his power. The majoritarian world view espoused by Mr Erdogan and leaders of his ilk is a kind of zombie democracy. It has the outward shape of the real thing, but it lacks the heart.

quote:

The AKP, for most of its time in power, did the most sensible thing it could: it sought to bring economic prosperity to the southeast; it distanced itself from the Turkish supremacist rhetoric of its predecessors; it offered a viable democratic alternative to the PKK movement that appealed to many Kurds; it launched a peace process. But ultimately it only took modest steps towards changing the reality of Turkish state power in the southeast in a way acceptable to a people whose own sense of nationhood was blossoming in the atmosphere of relative freedom it helped create.

Regardless of whether the government wins the armed war, it has already lost the cultural one. The rebel group is so deeply interwoven into Kurdish culture that if it can be dislodged, it will not be by Turkish force - every prosecution, every police raid, only drives it in deeper.