Changing Views on Self-Determination

7 January 2010 edit to this post:

Read Eric Hobsbawm's Nations and Nationalism Since 1780, specifically chapter 5: "The Apogee of Nationalism," for a killer modernist perspective on the transformation and use of the self-determination principle in the post WWI period. an excerpt below:

"Given the official commitment of the victorious powers to Wilsonian nationalism, it was natural that anyone claiming to speak in the name of some oppressed or unrecognized people -- should do so in terms of the national principle, and especially of the right to self-determination...It was anti-imperial. Insofar as there were proto-national identifications, ethnic, religious, or otherwise, among the comon people, they were, as yet, obstacles rather than contributions to the national consciousness, and readily mobilized against nationalists by imperial masters...." (137).

I'm writing a final essay for my good ol' Theories and Case Studies in the Theory of Nationalism class in Turkey, and so I'm back in this whole nationalism thing. Specifically I'm looking at how modernists address something I judge to be the "contemporary reality" of "ethnonationalism." So far what I'm looking at is that modernists have focused their efforts on proving the emptiness of the "antiquity of nations" - ethnic nations, linguistic nations, and very importantly proving the recent invention of connecting the presence of a nation with the demand for a nation-state. However, when we look at contemporary separatist nationalist movements, many, arguably most of them are ethnic nationalist movements. I ask, so now what, modernists? Is it 'enough' for the school to write it off as an "imagined community," or part of the "inventing of tradition?" Essentially my first reaction is no. I think as theoreticians of nations, they have to address something that, while perhaps invented, is now "a reality."

Yeap, we'll see how this essay goes. Probably end up shoddy because I less than 24 hours to complete it...

_________

In my last spring quarter at UCSD, I began a research project on the King-Crane Commission (a.k.a the American Section of the Inter-Allied Commission on Syria) - an arm of Wilson's self-determination philosophy, born in the Council of Four meetings at the Post WWI Paris Peace Conference. A short history of the Commission: Wilson goes to Paris, finds out about all the Allied Powers' secret treaties and divvying up of the old Ottoman territories, gets disgusted and demands that they send in a "fact-finding" commission into the region and figure out what the people there want. The French and the British reluctantly agree, but never actually send anyone. So what's left of the "Inter-Allied Commission" is the American Section, headed but Charles Crane and Henry King...HENCE the King-Crane Commission.

I was infatuated with this commission because IF it and its report had been a bigger deal at the Paris Peace Conference, the state order in the Middle East, the construction of the mandates, of Israel, the partitioning of Syria -- all of it would have been different...but after a long time of not touching my research and just thinking about it, it's time to get real and admit that probably the reason I was so interested in this commission was because I believed so fiercely in self-determination. This became so clear every time I began to describe my research to my professors, family, friends, fellow students, etc., and I described this commission and its report as a failed opportunity for the United States. (I realize this is a little difficult to follow without knowing what happened, so another brief history lesson: The Commission was dispatched to Syria, conducted extensive interviews and research in the region and then produced a report and recommendations, all of which were later completely ignored. The consequences of this negligence were almost perfectly predicted in the Commission report, and well, "the rest is history."

Anyways let me get to the point of this post, which is that I've stopped thinking so highly of self-determination. It has ceased to be an uplifting idea, associated with freedom/independence. In the past semester, inundated with the study of nationalism and seeing the effects of a world order based off of nation-states, national self-determination, nationalistic factions, interests, obsessions...well, it's possible that nation-states were a mistake. nationalistic-ness...mistakes mistakes mistakes that possibly catapulted us into this century of "small scale endemic warfare" (see Joseph Jaffe's most recent article in Foreign Affairs).

Do I have an alternative world order? Meh, not really. I'm just doubting the viability of the one we've got now.

At Home, Sort of.

Hi All!

I write to you from Cupertino, California, i.e. HOME! I arrived a few days ago, a few days that have just been a blur of family, Christmas spirit, Filipino parties, lots of food, and madddddd culture shock.

I'll quickly get the point of this blogpost, which is that I feel only partially present here at home. I described it yesterday like I was going through the motions of American/Californian life. All the comforts of home are wonderful, but not normal anymore. Obviously, in some time, life here, habits here, daily things here will again become my own. But my mind is preoccupied with thoughts of Turkey - and this perhaps will persist for much longer.

Today, my brain was occupied with the research paper I'm writing for my Foreign Policy of the Turkish Republic class, which is basically about the relationship between the United States and Turkey in regards to Northern Iraq-Kurdistan. I'm feeling exhausted after a day of reading about the violent history of the region and power-play politics.

Also, all day I was yearning to have someone to chat with about all this, which brings me to one of the key things I miss a lot about Turkey - people who are interested in Turkey! It's somewhat of a rarity here in my tech-obsessed Silicon Valley, and also at UC San Diego. I'm missing my friends/future colleagues in Istanbul with whom I can chat without end about any of these issues.

Anyways enough of that. Next post, I think, shall be about the history of Iraqi-US relations.

DTP, Kirkuk

President of the DTP Ahmet Turk. photo from Hurriyet Daily News.

1. Closure of DTP
Last Friday night, when Tyler, Ruth and I were gossiping over dinner at Urfam Lokantasi (just a local restaurant), the news came on and it was big...the DTP had just been closed by the Turkish high judiciary. Everyone had stopped eating to watch it as it all unfolded - scenes from the court, scenes of crowds at local DTP offices across Istanbul, the DTP leader Ahmet Turk making remarks...my first thought was along the lines of "holy crap." My second was, "at some point in the future, I'm going to be sitting in class and the closure of the DTP is going to come up as some kind of political watershed in the "Kurdish question" and I'm going to think back to this moment when I found out..." It was a long thought. But the kind of thought that one has in these kinds of times.

Anyways I want to write a bit about why the DTP is important, and a couple of things I think might happen, a couple of things I think that possibly should be considered. Many of these are recycled thoughts from friends, since I'm far from the expert on Turkish politics and I'm much happier to pass along more qualified thoughts from those who are...

Basics on the DTP: It stands for "Demokratik Toplum Partisi," or Democratic Society Party; and in a slightly oversimplified explanation, it is (well, it WAS) the pro-Kurdish political party in Turkey. It was shut down, and many of its top officials banned from participation in the Grand National Assembly after over a year of debate in the Turkish Constitutional Court over 11 accusations of the DTP's links with the terrorist organization the PKK, DTP sponsoring violence and separatism in Turkey, etc.

I think there are 2 basic things most people I've talked to agree on. 1) The ruling is constitutional. The DTP was guilty of these accusations, its links to the PKK would inevitably implicate it this way. 2) Result of DTP closure = political chaos, violence, instability. Already we're seeing the political fallout DTP leaders scramble to decide how to proceed...protests in Istanbul (right next to my house), in the Southeast, the KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government) in Northern Iraq, and more.

Finally, I want to raise a few points. Perhaps you folks in the west have gotten wind about the DTP (one or two articles in the NYT I think). Thinking back to the way that I would have thought about this 6 months ago, my guess is that the west is easily interpreting the closure of the DTP as a problem of political freedom, evidence against the Turkish "democratic" process, an oppression of the Kurdish minority in Turkey. Actually none of these things are outrageously far from the truth...but just a thought: the PKK is officially designated by the Turkish government as a terrorist organization. Over the past 20 years, conflicts have led to over 30,000 deaths. Could you picture if a major American political party, or even a single politician, were somehow tied to having relations with al-Qaeda? I fully, completely, totally and wholly want to say this is an extremely problematic kind of hypothetical question. But I just want to caution against a quick write-off of this as a problem with democratic freedoms in Turkey.

That being said, there is a huge problem with democratic freedoms in Turkey. Perhaps another time, another blogpost...


2. Northern Iraq and the Brewing Battle over Kirkuk

The coming increased violence in Southeast Turkey (an inevitable consequence, I think, of DTP closure), will lead to tensions between Northern Iraq and Turkey. Turkey will turn the pressure on Barzani and his Kurdistan Regional Government, a defacto independent "state" composing the three N Iraqi provinces of Erbil, Sulemaniya and Dahut. Possibly, cross-border raids into N Iraq will increase in frequency and/or intensity, depending on what kind of attitude the KRG takes to this coming violence. Already, however, Barzani has come out strong against the Turkish Constitutional Court Decision (could he have done otherwise...?!).

The "fragile peace" that the US hopes to maintain in Northern Iraq is also dependent on finding a viable political and economic solution for Kirkuk: ravaged by Saddam, ethnically diverse, increasingly violent, and oil-rich rich rich rich (did I mention it has a lot of oil?). While the KRG has already declared Kirkuk its capital, this doesn't sit well alongside simultaneous Turkmen/Arab claims to this oil rich rich rich province.

Turkey stand absolutely opposed to the KRG claim on Kirkuk, which would give it the financial independence to actually break away from Iraq (though who knows if that would actually happen).

I think I'm a fan of the KRG political control of Kirkuk, but ONLY if some kind of oil profit-sharing agreement...an economic inter-regional sort of agreement, can be reached. But we'll see...as I learn more I'll keep you posted.

Well, that's it for now. I'm leaving Turkey on Monday night and am about to begin my goodbye weekend...saying goodbye (at least for now) to Istanbul, to my unbelievable friends, favorite places, favorite smells, foods, sights. Today by chance, iPod shuffle gave me Rachel Yamagata's "I"ll find a way... to see you again." I thought it was appropriate :).