“Turkish Troops Enter Iraq in Pursuit of Kurdish Rebels”
Article Summary:
On September 8th, Turkish ground troops entered northern Iraq, seeking to capture Kurdish rebels from PPK that created a bomb attack to that killed 16 Turkish government’s soldiers on September 6th. The day before, the Turkish warplanes also struck Kurdish insurgent targets in northern Iraq and killed dozens of rebels from PKK. Through this mission, Prime Minister stated that PKK fighters from their mountain strongholds in Turkey and northern Iraq would be eradicated.
PKK, Kurdistan Workers Party, has been seeking independent territory within Turkey since 1980s. Because it mainly fights against the governmental force in the insurgent way and often uses terrorism tactics like bomb-attacking, and most importantly, promotes Marxism and Leninism. PKK has been regarded as a terrorist group in Turkey and listed on US’s Foreign Terrorism Organization as well. Since 2013, the PKK leaders and the Turkish government has been negotiating a peaceful solution for their territorial conflict. However, this July, as the collapse of a two-year cease-fire, attacks from both sides increasingly frequent and wide.
Personal Reflection:
This article follows both US’s and Turkey’s national narratives, as they share the same interests on the ideology and defeating ISIS. PKK as an actor that goes against Turkish government, is tightly connected to the YPG force that forms allies with the US army in Turkey-Iraq region and plays an important role against ISIS. Dealing with actors with different interests definitely has put the US into a difficult and subtle spot. In the middle of the article, it mentions that the European Union has also labeled PKK as a terrorists group. But the fact is, in 2008 the Luxembourg-based Court of First Instance decided that the EU should wipe off PKK from the blacklist because the listing was illegal under EU law, and the PKK should be regarded as a political force that practice different goals and principles. Under the pressure from its NATO members, EU refused to accept the court’s decision (See source 3, 4 and 5). As a terrorist group, the PKK is labeled unjust by the US and Turkey not because the PKK did a lot of inhuman harms to the civilians, but because the US share a lot more common interests with the Turkish government than with the PKK and its affiliated force.
Another example is that China has labeled Dalai Lama and its related groups as terrorists. China did it because Dalai Lama went against its ideology and did not obey its political agenda.
(P.S. Source 1 and source 2 explain clearly the relations among these four actors, Turkish government, the PKK, the YPG and the US.)
Connecting Back to Locke and Hobbes:
Hobbes’s approach:
According to Hobbes, government is established based on the contract between people. However, once people agree the contract and a sovereign is established accordingly, people can not raise up against the sovereign because it breaks the contract and hurt the commonwealth. It is because Hobbes emphasizes more on the legitimacy of a sovereign that can protect people’s physical safety rather than more other rights. If Kurdish people are not satisfied with what rights they have and their living conditions, their rebellion would be considered as unjust by Hobbes. Then the Turkey government’s suppression on Kurdish ethnic group is to protect most of the people who still agree on the contract and commonwealth, and therefore just.
Locke’s approach:
To Locke, there is a law of nature that is higher than any written law. Any legitimate government has to follow it. Further, government’s establishment is based on people’s consent and leader should be elected by people. If the leaders or even the government is not favored by people, they has the right to raise against their government. It is reported that the Turkish government does not favor Kurdish people and stop them from involving in politics. Meanwhile, Kurdish language is also forbidden in public school. According to Locke, the Kurdish can definitely raise against the Turkish government because they are not satisfied with the violation of their rights and their living condition. Therefore it is their natural right to rebel or take other just actions against its government.
Sources and Supplies：
On Hobbes take, do you think that the PKK are certainly a part of Turkey? Are they violating a covenant or were they simply grafted into something they neither had a hand in nor ever wanted? Does it matter to Hobbes?
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job of connecting the PKK and Turkey to the philosophies of Hobbes and Locke, and I especially appreciated how you explained why Hobbes and Locke would hold largely opposing views of the situation.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that Locke would support the Kurds to some degree, I do not think that he would agree with those who want to separate into an independent Kurdistan. He leaves room for the overthrow of a tyrant, but I don't know if he would consent to part of a country breaking off and forming its own state. He might even argue that by persecuting the Kurds, the Turkish government is doing what is best for the majority of its people. (Note that these are what I think Locke's opinions would be and certainly are not my own opinions.)
Indeed, Locke does not states what he thinks of the disruption of a nation as the result of one ethnic group’s dissatisfaction toward its government. Meanwhile, the separation of a nation would definitely cause a series of problem to people that the government contracted with. However, to Locke, if some basic rights can not be practiced within a contract, then the people can break down the contract and have a government (old or new) based on a new contract. To my knowledge, the Kurdish are treated unfairly in Turkey because their distinct culture is not favored by the Turkish. For example, in last two decades, political parties that represented Kurdish interests were banned, which means they did not have the right to practice free speech within politics. Also, the words "Kurds", "Kurdistan", or "Kurdish" were officially banned by the Turkish government., etc. I do not think Locke will regard the Turkish government is based on a just contract in term of it violates some basic rights that a civilian should be able to practice in a nation. To Hobbes, however, it would not be a big deal since his type of government is more focusing on forming a institution that can protect personal safety.
DeleteThere is more source that describe the Kurdish's human rights in Turkey:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_of_Kurdish_people_in_Turkey
There certainly are two views in great contrast to the other presented when comparing Hobbes and Locke, but I am not sure myself that following the greater law of nature in Locke's case would directly lead to such reasoning. While there definitely may be a more objective law in nature to be regarded higher than any else, the exact implications of such an approach aren't necessarily understood the same way by all people. Therefore, the legitimacy of the government may still obviously be in contention, since it is clear to us as readers that there is prejudice against the Kurds, but there are still clear arguments to be had for both sides when citing a total law of nature.
ReplyDeleteYes, I totally agree what you said that the law of nature is a unclear concept that can be interrupting in many ways. Only to Locke, in Ch. 8 of his text, he states: “Men all being naturally free, equal, and independent, no-one can be deprived of this freedom etc. and subjected to the political power of someone else, without his own consent.” This may be Locke’s interruption of the law of nature that should be applied to all human beings. To him, liberty and equality are the basic bottom-lines of a social contract (although both of them are always the hardest things that any government has to deal with). In Turkey-PKK case, my personal preference is to reason according to Locke’s understanding toward the law of nature.
DeleteI agree with Rachel - I am not convinced that the Kurds will be suported by Locke to seperate themselves from Turkey. Locke states the idea that when the government does not fulfills its requirements towards its citizens, then the citizens have the right to protest and to insist for a change. But he does not convey the idea that people should want independence when their needs are not met.
ReplyDeleteIf the independence is the case of this issue, I will agree with Rachel. Both Locke and Hobbes will hold some arguments towards the Kurds but I will argue that independence should be taken differently than people doing revision to the social contract since these two are in the different extends. Moreover, I will argue that independence seems more severe than just simply revise the social contract, let alone the violence and movement involved. It should be taken more as revolution.
ReplyDelete