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.