An expert report on the Kurdish question cannot ignore the Treaty of Lausanne. Kurdish politician Kenan Ayaz draws attention to this and other shortcomings in the PKK trial at Hamburg Higher Regional Court.
The trial against Kurdish politician Kenan Ayaz before the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg continued on Monday with the second part of the defendant’s statement on the expert opinion of expert witness Dr Günter Seufert. Inadequately considered events were highlighted and incorrect statements were corrected, some of which are presented here as examples:
Treaty of Lausanne as an elementary component of the Kurdish question
In his statement, Kenan Ayaz pointed out gaps and incorrect statements made by the expert witness Dr Seufert and corrected them. The presiding judge Wende-Spors obviously could not and would not accept the necessity of the historical-political explanations and categorisations and interrupted the defendant again several times.
Ayaz criticised the fact that the expert witness only mentioned the Lausanne Treaty in one sentence in his expert opinion. He said that the treaty was of outstanding importance in the persecution and extermination policy against the Kurds, because ‘on the one hand, this treaty prepared the ground for the founding of the Republic of Turkey, and on the other hand, it initiated the process of genocide against the Kurds, as it included their denial’.
With the signing of the treaty on 24 July 1923 in Lausanne by Great Britain, France and Turkey, among others, the government of the Turkish National Assembly was de facto officially recognised by the victorious states of the First World War – three months later, the Republic of Turkey was founded. It was also agreed that Kurdistan would be divided between the four states of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. According to Ayaz, the signatory states made themselves ‘accomplices to the genocide of the Kurds’, which is still ongoing.
He also pointed out that this treaty had not come out of nowhere, as the brief mention by Dr Seufert would lead one to assume. Instead, it was ‘preceded by a long process of political and military disputes’.
Of particular importance here is the First World War and, with its end, the fall of the Ottoman Empire as well as the resistance of the Kemalist movement against the Allied occupying powers. This resistance was mainly fuelled by the Ottoman army in Kurdistan and the support of the Kurds. It is understandable that Mustafa Kemal, the later founder of the Republic of Turkey, wanted to maintain this support. It therefore seems obvious that Kurdish deputies were represented in the National Assembly and that the Kurds were granted ‘autonomy’ in its first constitution of 1921.
The fact that the Kurds were a key factor is also clear from the fact that the delegation from Ankara participating in the negotiations in Lausanne saw itself as a ‘joint delegation of Turks and Kurds’. However, the Turkish side of the delegation ultimately prevailed and the ‘existence and political status of the Kurds were negated’ by not mentioning them in the Treaty of Lausanne. The Kurds had obviously done their duty, they were no longer needed. The Republic of Turkey proclaimed on 29 October 1923 was not based on plurality, but on unity. This was also reflected in the second constitution of 1924, in which all passages relating to the rights of the Kurds were deleted.
Criticising the expert, Kenan Ayaz stated: ‘Even after one hundred years, this treaty, which implies the annihilation of the Kurdish people by not recognising their existence and thus their political and democratic rights, must be an elementary component of any academic treatment of the Kurdish question. From a political point of view, the signatory states at the time can do without dealing with this issue, but neither can any expert.’
A modern and progressive republic?
The Kurds’ resistance to the assimilationist and genocidal policies and their demand for the rights to equality and freedom that had been promised to them in the War of National Liberation was met with violence. Kurdishness and its culture were to be destroyed, the Kurds forced to flee, economically exploited and Kurdistan’s resources plundered. The Kurdish uprisings between 1925 and 1940 were and are classified in Turkey as backward and against the Republic – ultimately in order to legitimise their suppression. The expert also followed this pattern of argumentation in his comments on the 1925 uprising under the leadership of Sheikh Said. To expose this, Kenan Ayaz cites a quote from the then Turkish Chief of General Staff İsmet İnönü, who ordered the suppression of the uprising: ‘Present this movement to Europe and the outside world as a reactionary, bigoted, religious movement so that they do not perceive it as a national Kurdish movement.’
For Kenan Ayaz, the question arose as to how the expert could describe such a republic as ‘very modern and progressive’. After all, this republic was also responsible for the genocide of the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks. And even though governments have changed and military coups have taken place over the past hundred years, the ‘main ideology and strategy of the Republic of Turkey’ has not changed, according to Ayaz:
‘Turkey has become a militarised state whose mob is shaped by racist nationalist delusions and which rains bombs on Kurdish territory every other day.’ The defendant therefore came to the conclusion that such a policy cannot be described as democratic. Not least because the Turkish state is trying to ‘replace the Treaty of Lausanne with the NATO treaty and continue the genocide against the Kurds in the second century on this basis’.
The village guard system as a proven instrument of division
Ayaz further criticised the expert Dr Seufert for giving the impression that village guards were first deployed by the Turkish state at the beginning of the PKK’s armed struggle in 1984. But the ‘system of village guards is not new in Kurdish society’, emphasised the defendant. The same method had been applied to Armenian-Kurdish and Kurdish-Syrian relations since the 1870s. The aim was to drive a wedge between these population groups in order to establish a ‘divide and rule’ policy. For example, in the early 1890s, the ‘Hamidiye regiments’ were formed, which can be seen as an early form of the village guard system. Within these regiments, both Young Turks and Kurdish feudal lords were responsible for the genocide of the Armenians. However, they were also deployed against the emerging Kurdish national movement. As a result, the ‘Kurdish national democratic movement that could have developed […] suffered a severe blow. Moreover, the tribes became enemies through their relations with each other. […] In Kurdish society, the village guards represent the collaborating and betrayed Kurds. The PKK, on the other hand, is a movement of rebellion, struggle and war of liberation of the Kurdish people against denial, massacre and genocide.’
Kenan Ayaz will conclude his criticism of Dr Seufert’s expert opinion at the next trial date on 11 March.
ID check for trial visitors
Due to a court order, the ID cards of visitors are currently being copied. The reason for this is that the presiding judge does not readily tolerate the solidarity expressed towards the defendant through clapping.
Further hearing dates are
Monday, 11.3.2024
Tuesday, 12 March 2024;
Wednesday, 20 March 2024;
Tuesday, 9 April 2024, from 1 pm;
Wednesday, 17 April 2024;
Friday, 19 April 2024;
Wednesday, 24 April 2024.
The trial will take place on the 1st floor of the OLG at Sievekingplatz 3, either in room 237 or 288, the hearings usually start at 9.30 am.
Postal address and donation account
The website kenanwatch.org provides information in Greek, English and German about the trial and the protests in Cyprus and Germany. Kenan Ayaz is happy to receive mail. Letters can also be written in languages other than Kurdish or Turkish, as translation is guaranteed. Please note the spelling of the authority’s name ‘Ayas’ to ensure that the letters are delivered.
Kenan Ayas
Hamburg remand centre
Holstenglacis 3
20355 Hamburg
Donation account:
Rote Hilfe e.V. OG Hamburg
Keyword: Free Kenan
IBAN: DE06200100200084610203