In the trial against the Kurdish activist Kenan Ayaz before the Hamburg Higher Regional Court, the expert witness Günter Seufert, who was summoned by the criminal prosecution senate, was heard. The defendant asked critical questions.
On 5 December, Dr Günter Seufert testified for the first time as an expert witness in the proceedings against Kenan Ayaz before the Hamburg Higher Regional Court. It is the first time that the former head of the Centre for Applied Turkish Studies (CATS) of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) has been heard as an expert witness in proceedings against a Kurdish activist. In his previous position, the expert had provided a lot of political advice and also advised the German government, as the SWP – as he stated – is 95 per cent funded by the Federal Chancellery. He has since retired, but is still involved in research projects.
The expert had been commissioned by the court to prepare an expert opinion on the origins and development of the ‘Kurdish conflict’ as well as on the ideology and goals of the PKK and KCK and their organisation and financing and on the HPG attacks. Seufert had prepared a written expert report, which he partly read out and partly summarised.
The expert began his report with the history of the conflict, mentioning the promises of autonomy made to the Kurds before the founding of the Republic of Turkey, the radical renunciation of this promise and the elevation of the equation of nationals with Turks to Turkish state doctrine, the genocide of the Kurds in Dersim and the role that the cruel repression in the military prison of Amed (tr. Diyarbakir) played in the development of the PKK. He also spoke about the impossibility of legal Kurdish politics, the numerous party bans and the KCK trials, with which the Gülen movement criminalised Kurdish civil society and attempted to torpedo the then still secret peace negotiations between the government and the PKK. He also reported on the KCK system and the implementation of the concept of democratic confederalism in Rojava. His very critical attitude towards the PKK and the KCK became clear in his report. It was striking that he often held very strong opinions or made judgements, but was not always able to cite sources when asked.
After questions from the court and the federal prosecutor’s office, Kenan Ayaz also questioned the expert witness. He began by thanking him for his work, but then questioned his approach of equating the Kurdish issue with the PKK. He asked about Kurdish history going back to the Sumerians and questioned the expert’s account that the suppression of Kurdish uprisings such as that of Şêx Seîdê Pîran was a struggle of the modern Turkish nation state against backward, religiously conservative Kurdish tribes who only wanted the caliphate back. This version of history is also propagated in Turkish school textbooks. In his answer, the expert had to point out that he was not a historian and that there were certainly different academic opinions about the cause of these uprisings.
After questions about the Lausanne Treaty, which the expert had not even mentioned in his presentation, Kenan Ayaz said: ‘In order to solve the problem, we have to describe the problem correctly. I lived in Midyat, where Assyrians, Yezidis, Arabs and Kurds lived together. It was a miniature Middle Eastern society. But then, when the nation state and Islamism emerged, these peoples began to go for each other’s throats. Would you agree with me?’ The expert replied: ‘This is not just a problem for the Kurds, but for all peoples in the Middle East. You have to move away from politics: one language, one nation, one identity. We have to move away from the idea of a nation. The EU is a good model. In the EU, all states have their own characteristics, which they preserve. This solution was found after the Great War.’
In response to the subsequent question as to why the EU does not see this model as a solution for the peoples of the Middle East, he replied: ‘I think you are right. The Europeans invented nationalism and the nation state, they have taken this idea to extremes and that is why they are now trying to free themselves from these nation-state constraints with the EU. But I also believe that we have a fundamental problem, as you rightly say. We had different models in all regions of the former Ottoman Empire: we had the assimilating nation state in Turkey, we had a republic with ethnic republics in Yugoslavia, we had a two-state model in Cyprus and we had a proportional system in Lebanon. Nowhere has it worked for members of different ethnic and political groups to create a common system. The expert only addressed the concept of democratic confederalism and its implementation in Rojava later in his report, but did not mention it when listing the various failed models. He made it clear that he is nevertheless critical of the system in Rojava by repeatedly emphasising the perspective of the Kurdish groups in Rojava led by the Barzanî party PDK.
Kenan Ayaz also asked the expert about another blank space in his report, namely the character of the autocratic Turkish state, using the example of Turkish support for the terrorist militia ‘Islamic State’ (IS). In response to this question, the expert replied somewhat indignantly that he was not interested in defending Erdoǧan, but that he did not want to comment on Erdoǧan’s relationship with IS, as this would not lead anywhere.
It remained incomprehensible why the expert did not consider the Turkish support for IS, which attacked and attempted to destroy the Kurds and Yezidis in Syria and Iraq, to be relevant for the description of the conflict, although the actions of the jihadist gangs supported by Turkey against the Kurds in Rojava continue to this day.
Due to the scope of the task, Seufert was unable to complete his presentation and will be heard again on 19 December.
The trial against Kenan Ayaz will continue on Monday, 11 December at 9.30 am in courtroom 237. The solidarity committee is calling on people to observe the trial and show solidarity.