Sir, - The letter from the Turkish Ambassador (September 11th) is inaccurate and misleading in several important respects. First, the Kurds of Iraq did no flee in large numbers into Turkey "to escape the chemical weapons . . . used against them in Halabja," which is nowhere near Turkey. They were seeking refuge from Saddam's advancing armies after their abortive uprising subsequent to the Gulf War. This was in 1991, three years after Halabja.
It is true that there are members of the cited ethnic groups in Iraqi Kurdistan, but they comprise, between them, an insignificant minority of the total. It is not the case that "more than 400,000 Northern Iraqis find safety (in the present tense) in Turkey." It is possible that such a number fled in panic in 1991, but they were not encouraged, by any means, to stay and the vast majority moved back to their homeland after the establishment of the "safe havens".
The setting up by the Western Allies of the no fly zone in southern Iraq was stated by the Allies to be for the protection of the Shias, especially the Marsh Arabs (in which it failed miserably), more than for that of Kuwait.
The figure given of $50 billion as the cost to Turkey of "the Northern Iraq problem" is almost exactly double the estimate made recently by the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mrs Tansu Ciller. Most of this arose from lost oil revenues.
Most importantly, the Ambassador has the neck to write that "from the establishment of the (Turkish) republic in 1923, Turkey never had similar problems with the Kurdish ... minority". It is well known that, throughout that period, Turkey has rigorously repressed - usually by the most brutal means - its estimated 12 million Kurds, who comprise some 20 per cent of the population, and denied their justifiable claims to basic human
Use of the Kurdish language has been proscribed and no Kurdish newspapers, radio or TV stations are permitted. Until very recently, their very existence was not admitted by the state: they were described as "Mountain Turks". It is not surprising that Amnesty International stated last year that Turkey's human rights record was worse than that of Iraq and Iran put together.
All this occurred despite the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), under which inter alia the state of Turkey was set up. It specifically guaranteed to minorities the very human rights that have been denied to the Kurds ever since. It disgraces Britain, the principal signatory, that no attempt was made to enforce these provisions.
In these circumstances, it was hardly surprising that a nationalist movement grew up in Turkey, as in the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Iran, which aimed to right these wrongs. In all three countries, in the absence of any success by peaceful means, the leaders turned at last to violence - as did the nationalists in Ireland, in very comparable circumstances, in 1916.
The Ambassador makes free use of the word "terrorism". This is habitually used to describe military acts by an organisation with whose aims one disagrees: to British eyes, de Valera was a terrorist. His Excellency should bear in mind that the terrorist of today may become the respected political leader of tomorrow, if his aims are achieved - or even an ambassador. - Yours, etc.,
Killegar,
Co Leitrim