A project of destruction, peace, or techno-science? Untangling the relationship between the Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) and the Kurdish question in Turkey

ABSTRACT

The Southeastern Anatolia Project (Güneydoğu Anadolu Projesi, GAP) was initiated in the 1970s to produce energy and irrigate arid lands through constructing dams and hydroelectric power plants on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers and extensive irrigation networks in southeastern Turkey. Over time, the project was expanded to achieve a wider range of goals in different fields and radically transform Southeastern Anatolia Region. It is also widely claimed that GAP was initiated to address the root causes of the Kurdish question in Turkey and that security considerations and political calculations were actually the raison d’être of GAP. However, this supposed link between GAP and the Kurdish question was often established in a simplistic manner and the question how these two have been related – or not – remained largely untangled. This article aims to fill this research gap and examine the complex and multi-dimensional nature of the interrelationship between GAP and the Kurdish question based on diverse primary and secondary data sources. Accordingly, the article identifies and discusses major narratives in which GAP was conceived as a political and strategic ‘anti-Kurdish’ plot; remedy for the conflict; and totally technical non-political project and presents an alternative and more accurate perspective on how to interpret this relationship.

KEYWORDS:

• Development
• security
• Kurdish question
• Southeastern Anatolia Project
• GAP
• Turkey

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Prof. Dr. Conrad Schetter and Dr. Katja Mielke for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. İ. Tekeli, Türkiye'de Bölgesel Eşitsizlik ve Bölge Planlama Yazıları [Writings on Regional Inequality and Regional Planning in Turkey] (İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları, 2008), p.51.

2. M.R. Jafar, Under-Underdevelopment: A Regional Case Study of the Kurdish Area in Turkey (Helsinki: Painoprint Oy, 1976), p.52.

3. K. Göymen, Milestones of Regional Policy in Turkey. Paper Presented at the International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration (IASIA) Annual Conference, Kampala, 2008.

4. Alternative labels include, but are not limited to, the Eastern problem, Southeastern problem, Kurdish problem, Kurdish conflict, Turkish–Kurdish conflict, and terrorism problem.

5. The article is a part of a larger research project conducted on GAP between 2012 and 2017 in Germany.

6. K. Kirişçi, ‘Minority/Majority Discourse: The Case of the Kurds in Turkey’, in D.C. Gladney (ed.), Making Majorities: Constituting the Nation in Japan, Korea, China, Malaysia, Fiji, Turkey, and the United States, ed. D.C. Gladney (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), p.228.

7. S. Özçelik, ‘Theories, Practices, and Research in Conflict Resolution and Low-Intensity Conflicts: The Kurdish Conflict in Turkey’, Journal of Conflict Studies Vol.26 (2006), p.135.

8. Ibid., p.136.

9. M. Heper, The State and Kurds in Turkey: The Question of Assimilation (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), p.83.

10. H.J. Barkey and G.E. Fuller, ‘Turkey's Kurdish Question: Critical Turning Points and Missed Opportunities’, The Middle East Journal Vol.51 (1997), p.63.

11. T.Z. Ekinci, Kürt Siyasal Hareketlerinin Sınıfsal Analizi [Class-Based Analysis of Kurdish National Movements] (İstanbul: Sosyal Tarih Yayınları, 2011), p.54.

12. Heper, The State and Kurds, pp.155–6.

13. Ibid., p.157.

14. Ibid., p.157.

15. Özçelik, ‘Theories, Practices, and Research in Conflict, p.137 (see note 7).

16. M. Somer, Milada Dönüş: Ulus-devletten Devlet-ulusa Türk ve Kürt Meselesinin Üç İkilemi [Return to Point Zero: Three Dilemmas of the Turkish and Kurdish Problem from Nation-State to State-Nation] (İstanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2015), p.188.

17. M. Yeğen, ‘The Kurdish Question in Turkish State Discourse’, Journal of Contemporary History Vol.34 (1999), p.555.

18. H.A. Ünver, Turkey's Kurdish Question: Discourse and Politics Since 1990 (London and New York: Routledge, 2015), pp.9–10.

19. Ibid. See also Ö.M. Uluğ and J.C. Cohrs, ‘An Exploration of Lay People's Kurdish Conflict Frames in Turkey’, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology Vol.22 (2016), pp.109–19, for conflict frames from the perspective of laypersons.

20. Heper, The State and Kurds, p.180.

21. C.E. Nestor, ‘Dimensions of Turkey's Kurdish Question and the Potential Impact of the Southeast Anatolian Project (GAP): Part II’, The International Journal of Kurdish Studies Vol.9 (1996), pp.35–78.

22. A. Çarkoğlu and M. Eder, ‘Domestic Concerns and the Water Conflict Over the Euphrates-Tigris River Basin’, Middle Eastern Studies Vol.37 (2001), pp.41–71.

23. N. Özok-Gündoğan, ‘“Social Development” as a Governmental Strategy in the Southeastern Anatolia Project’, New Perspectives on Turkey Vol.32 (2005), pp.93–111. See also L.M. Harris, ‘Water and Conflict Geographies of the Southeastern Anatolia Project’, Society & Natural Resources Vol.15 (2002), pp.743–59, for a similar work claiming that GAP was a novel and less violent means to manage populations and address the conflict.

24. J. Jongerden, ‘Dams and Politics in Turkey: Utilizing Water, Developing Conflict’, Middle East Policy Vol.17 (2010), pp.137–43.

25. R. Hatem and M. Dohrmann, ‘Turkey's Fix for the “Kurdish Problem”: Ankara's Challenges’, Middle East Quarterly Vol.20 (2013), pp.49–58.

26. A. Bilgen, ‘A Static Nexus or a Dynamic Network? Rethinking the Security-Development Relationship Within the Context of Southeastern Anatolia Project’, Centre for Policy Analysis and Research on Turkey Vol.3 (2014), pp.12–23. http://researchturkey.org/?p=5859

27. Kurdish Human Rights Project, The Ilisu Dam: A Human Rights Disaster in the Making: A Report on the Implications of the Ilisu Hydro-Electric Power Project, Batman Province, Southeast Turkey Following a Fact-Finding Mission to the Region (London: KHRP, 1999).

28. M. Kömürcü, ‘Cultural Heritage Endangered by Large Dams and its Protection Under International Law’, Wisconsin International Law Journal Vol.20 (2001), pp.233–96.

29. E. Yalçın, ‘Ilısu Dam and HEPP, Investigation of Alternative Solutions’ (Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University, 2010), pp.77–8.

30. M. Girard and C. Scalbert-Yücel, Heritage as a Category of Public Policy in the Southeastern Anatolia Region’ in M. Aymes, B. Gourisse, and É. Massicard (eds.), Order and Compromise: Government Practices in Turkey from the Late Ottoman Empire to the Early 21^st Century (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015), pp.192–219.

31. Middle East Technical University, Population Movements in the Southeastern Anatolia Project Region: Executive Summary (Ankara: GAP-RDA, 1994).

32. Sociology Association, Survey on the Problems of Employment and Resettlement in Areas Affected by Dam Lakes in GAP Region (Ankara: GAP-RDA, 1994).

33. GAP Bölgesel Kalkınma İdaresi, Birecik Barajı’ndan Etkilenen Nüfusun Yeniden Yerleşimi, İstihdamı ve Ekonomik Yatırımları için Planlama ve Uygulama Projesi [Planning and Implementation Project for the Resettlement, Employment, and Economic Investments of the Population Affected by Birecik Dam] (Ankara: GAP-BKİ, 1998).

34. B. Morvaridi, ‘Resettlement, Rights to Development and the Ilısu Dam, Turkey’, Development and Change Vol.35 (2004), pp.719–41. See also C. Eberlein, H. Drillisch, E. Ayboğa and T. Wenidoppler, ‘The Ilısu Dam in Turkey and the Role of the Export Credit Agencies and NGO Networks’, Water Alternatives Vol.3 (2010), pp.291–312, for the roles of export credit agencies and NGOs in changing the consequences of Ilısu Dam and J. Warner, ‘The Struggle Over Turkey's Ilısu Dam: Domestic and International Security Linkages’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Vol.12 (2012), pp.231–50 for an analysis of how Ilısu Dam was securitized.

35. Ç. Kurt, ‘The Impact of the Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP) on Displaced Families: Household Livelihoods and Gender Relations’ (Doctoral thesis, Newcastle University, 2013).

36. K. Öktem, ‘When Dams are Built on Shaky Grounds: Policy Choice and Social Performance of Hydro-Project Based Development in Turkey’, Erdkunde Vol.56 (2002), pp.310–25.

37. A.M. Pool and V.I. Grover, GAPs in the Dialogue of Governance: Conflicting Ideologies of Development in Turkey in Water: Global Common and Global Problems (Enfield: Science Publishers, 2006), pp.373–97.

38. L.M. Harris, ‘States at the Limit: Tracing Contemporary State-Society Relations in the Borderlands of Southeastern Turkey’, European Journal of Turkish Studies Vol.10 (2009), pp.2–17 and L.M. Harris, ‘State as Socionatural Effect: Variable and Emergent Geographies of the State in Southeastern Turkey’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East Vol.32 (2012), pp.25–39.

39. L. Hommes, R. Boelens and H. Maat, ‘Contested Hydrosocial Territories and Disputed Water Governance: Struggles and Competing Claims Over the Ilisu Dam Development in Southeastern Turkey’, Geoforum, Vol.71 (2016), pp.9–20.

40. S. Mutlu, ‘Economic Bases of Ethnic Separatism in Turkey: An Evaluation of Claims and Counterclaims’, Middle Eastern Studies Vol.37 (2001), pp.101–35.

41. Jafar, Under-Underdevelopment, p.80.

42. Interview, 7 May 2014, Ankara.

43. A. Öcalan, Demokratik Kurtuluş ve Özgür Yaşamı İnşa: İmralı Notları [Democratic salvation and construction of free life (Notes from İmralı)] (Neuss: Weşanen Mezopotamya, 2015), p.357.

44. Interview, 6 May 2014, Ankara.

45. Öcalan, Demokratik Kurtuluş, p.266.

46. Interview, 6 May 2014, Ankara.

47. Interview, 8 May 2014, Ankara.

48. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, Term 24, Year 3, Sitting 40 (14 December 2012), p.815.

49. Interview, 8 May 2014, Ankara.

50. Interview, 5 May 2014, Ankara.

51. Jongerden, ‘Dams and Politics in Turkey’, p.141.

52. Heper, The State and Kurds, p.132.

53. Ibid., p.132.

54. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, Term 18, Year 1, Sitting 41 (24 March 1988), p.338.

55. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, Term 19, Year 2, Sitting 78 (9 March 1993), p.470.

56. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, Term 21, Year 3, Sitting 18 (21 November 2000), p.348.

57. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, Term 23, Year 4, Sitting 42 (25 December 2009), p.69.

58. Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, Term 24, Year 4, Sitting 31 (14 December 2013).

59. Interview, 30 April 2014, Ankara.

60. GAP Bölgesel Kalkınma İdaresi, GAP ve Emeğe Saygı [GAP and Respect for Labor] (İstanbul: GAP-BKİ, 2012), p.131.

61. Interview, 22 April 2014, Ankara.

62. GAP Regional Development Administration, Southeastern Anatolia Project (GAP) Action Plan (Ankara: GAP-RDA, 1995), p.3.

63. GAP Bölgesel Kalkınma İdaresi, GAP Eylem Planı (2008–2012) [GAP Action Plan (2008–2012)], 2008, p. i.

64. GAP Bölgesel Kalkınma İdaresi, GAP Eylem Planı (2014–2018) [GAP Action Plan (2014–2018)], 2014, p.3.

65. Interview, 20 May 2014, Ankara.

66. Interview, 24 March 2014, Ankara.

67. Interview, 16 May 2014, Ankara.

68. Interview, 30 May 2014, Şanlıurfa.

69. Interview, 2 April 2014, Ankara.

70. Interview, 21 March 2014, Ankara.

71. Interview, 25 April 2014, Ankara.

72. Interview, 25 March 2014, Ankara.

73. Kızılırmak is Turkey's longest river. It flows across the Central Anatolia Region to the Black Sea.

74. It is a landlocked province located in the Black Sea Region.

75. Interview, 30 April 2014, Ankara.

76. Interview, 9 April 2014, Ankara.

77. Even though women are the primary target group of ÇATOM, children and adult males can also be included in ÇATOM programs.

78. Interview, 9 April 2014, Ankara.

79. E. Gellner, Nationalism (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1997), p.13.

80. According to official figures, 74 per cent of energy and 26.4 per cent of irrigation projects were completed as of 2017. See GAP Bölgesel Kalkınma İdaresi, ‘Güneydoğu Anadolu Projesi: Son durum’ [Southeastern Anatolia Project: Final situation], (2016), pp.28–32. http://yayin.gap.gov.tr/pdf-view/web/index.php?Dosya=ef1457f5b1

81. C. Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (Chicago, IL, and London: University of Chicago Press, 2007), p.35.

82. O.U. İnce, ‘The Return of the Schmittian: Radical Democratic Theory at its Limits', Social Science Research Network (7 October 2009), p.8. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1675583

83. C. Mouffe, On the Political (London and New York, NY: Routledge, 2005), p.9.

84. Ibid., p.10.

85. Ibid., p.10.

86. Ibid., p.14.

87. E.A. Foster, P. Kerr and C. Byrne, ‘Rolling Back to Roll Forward: Depoliticisation and the Extension of Government’, Policy & Politics Vol.42 (2014), p.3.

88. C. Hay, Why We Hate Politics? (Cambridge: Polity, 2007), p.79.

89. Ibid., pp.79–80.

90. Ünver, Turkey's Kurdish Question, p.141.