The Declaration of Independence, the ideal and base of existence and organization in America, clearly states that "all men are created equal." Why is it that the whole world can not understand what most Americans accept as truth? Imagine living in a country where no one speaks your language. Nobody knows about your culture, and nobody formally recognizes your heritage. Your fellow countrymen deny the very existence of your culture. It is taboo to even mention the name of your outcast patriotism. Now imagine there are forty million people, just like you, who are condemned, persecuted, and discriminated against because you do not have your own nation to pay homage to. Instead, all of your kind live in rebellion against the existing governments of the countries in which you are divided. Though forty million is a vast number, you and your fellow patriots are a minority. You long for equal human rights. You yearn for independence, or at the very least, official recognition as a people.

This scenario is very difficult to conceive. Today, the Kurdish society consists of forty million people, making them the largest ethnic group in the world without their own state (Barkey 1). The Kurds reside in the countries Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq. Unfortunately, the Kurds believe they have no other option but to demand their independence by means of armed military force. As a result, nearly 30,000 lives have been lost, many of which are both Turkish and Kurdish civilians ("Turkey Continues"). The unbending Turkish government refuses to even consider negotiations with the Kurds, and they avoid ever mentioning the Kurds’ ethnicity. Kurds are referred to as "terrorists," "rebels," "separatists," and as a "brutal Marxist group" ("By" 57). These titles are due in part to the violent methods the Kurds employ to achieve their independence. Until the Turks agree to diplomatic negotiations, and the Kurds abandon their violent methods, the thirteen-year civil war may well continue to rage in the Middle East.

For the past thirteen years the Kurds have sought independence and political freedom from the Turks by means of a "most brutal civil war" ("By" 57). The Kurds are one of the most ancient groups of people in the world, and their ancestry can be traced back to at least the sixth century BC (Gankin 11). Today, their existence is not an official fact (Barkey 4). In 1923 Kurdistan was quartered between several mideastern countries. Turkey claimed a territory inhabited by 20 million Kurds, Iran acquired 9 million Kurds, Iraq, 5.5 million, and Syria, 2 million. There are also Kurds living in other parts of Western Europe, including Germany, and one million Kurds reside in Russia and its surrounding states (Gankin 11). With the dispersion of the Kurds into many countries, the Turkish-Kurdish conflict has become internationalized (Barkey 4). The armed struggle of the Kurds began in 1984, with the formation of the Kurdish Worker’s Party, or the PKK (Erguven). Other Kurdish political parties exist as well. The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) rival against each other, each speaking a different dialect and each controlling a different zone of Kurd-inhabited territory (Barkey 2).

The current conflict between the Turks and Kurds revolves around the Kurds’ desire to be granted their own homeland. However, a large problem also lies in the latest of Turkey’s problems, human rights abuses. Other countries seem to be fully aware of the unspeakable horrors that take place in Turkish prisons, but they do nothing to amend things. Stephen Kinzer, of The New York Times, quoted the playwright Esber Yagmurdereli in an article written November 30, 1997: "Sometimes I wonder whether the people doing this to us are human or whether they are totally oblivious to the people around them." ("Dissent" WK10). Yagmurdereli has had long experience in Turkish prisons. He wrote his play in order to point out the many contradictions that exist in Turkish politics. One of the most prominent contradictions is that "western governments criticize rights abuses in Turkey, but continue selling weapons to the security forces" (Kinzer "Dissent" WK10). Among human rights violations Turkey has committed are jailing journalists for acknowledging the Kurds (Fonn 41), imprisoning "parliamentarians…artists, and ordinary citizens for free speech and political advocacy" ("Turkish Wrongs" A26). People suffering the lack of human rights have attempted to escape conditions by fleeing to other countries. January 5, 1998 brought a 1,200 person fleet of Turkish-Kurd refugees to Italy. The Italian Government, influenced by the Catholic Church and Prime Minister Romano Prodi, has welcomed the Kurds "‘with open arms’" because "the issue of their civil rights in Turkey is ‘real, not fictitious’" (Kinzer "Turk-Kurd" A9).

Much to the Turkish government’s dismay, Italy is not the only country that has given aid to the Kurds. Syria and Iran have Kurdish minorities of their own to deal with, and they want the Turks to remain the chief target of the Kurds’ pursuit for nationalism. They are therefore "happy to let PKK guerrillas camp near their borders with Turkey" ("Unwinnable" 58). Support for the Kurds is one reason for the war’s continuation. News coverage of the conflict between Kurds and Turks often serves as an outlet for gaining support for both rivals. The media varies in sympathy toward the groups. For the most part, Kurds are viewed as rebel separatists, and Turks are viewed as organized, non-negotiating officials with strong armies. Americans tend to sympathize with the Turks in some respects, but they also sympathize with the unequal human rights of the Kurds. Other countries such as Germany, France, and Russia differ somewhat in their portrayal of both Kurdish and Turkish societies. America’s The New York Times International is written from a fairly objective standpoint. Instead of the democratic slant you might expect to see, The New York Times portrays both sides in most articles. The U.S. can not be completely objective all the time, because it too is involved in the Turk-Kurd conflict indirectly. Abdullah Ocalan, the "guerrilla leader," appealed to Western countries including the U.S. "to help persuade Turkey to open dialogue with his guerrillas." He added that he would support Turkish membership in the European Union, to which it was recently denied, "‘if Turkey respects the basic rights of Kurds and political parties, including the PKK’" (Kinzer "Kurdish": A19). In an article written December 19, 1997, Stephen Kinzer of The New York Times reported that the U.S. classified the Kurdish Workers Party as a terrorist group ("Turkey"). News articles in the U.S. seem to agree with German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel in saying that "we want to help, but Turkey… must say that it wants to deal with its internal Kurdish problem, and that doesn’t mean militarily but politically" (Kinzer "Turk-Kurd").

The American media portrays Turkish leaders as "hard-liners who reject even minor concessions [such as Kurdish-language television programs] to the Kurds" ("Unwinnable" 58). The Economist believes that Turkey’s war on the Kurds seems "unwinnable," despite their claim that "the PKK is itself ruthless, and its goals half-baked" (58). Turks themselves believe, and want their people to believe that their military struggle against Kurdish separatism has, to large extent, been won. Several recent attacks disprove their theory (Kinzer "Turk-Kurd" A9).

The Turks’ brutal military campaign and harsh punishment methods are part of Turkey’s human rights problems that have also kept them from winning the war entirely ("Turkish Wrongs" A26). Sympathy for the Kurds arises among nations when they hear of human rights violations, such as treatment in prisons, unfair imprisonment, and banned freedom of speech.

German and French presses portray the Turks as tough and unbending through powerful word choice. One French article, written December 5, 1997, describes a Turkish operation "pounding" positions held by the PKK ("Turkish Army"). December fourth the Turks launched a "massive…autumn cleaning-up operation" to destroy rebel shelters ("Turkey Launches"). They described a possible encounter with the Kurds as "hot contact," and they spoke of delivering a "heavy blow on the terrorist organization" ("Turkey Launches"). Phrases such as these not only showed the Turks as unbeatable men, but also insinuated a certain sneakiness of the Kurds. Power words such as "reinfiltration," "stage attacks," and "incursion" imply a certain slyness and lack of formal organization ("Turkey Pushes"). Another French article continues to portray Turks as the stronger party, but it also points out that Turkey "refused to recognize the unilateral cease-fires [set by the Kurds] and continued their mission to hunt down Kurdish fighters in southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq" ("Kurdish").

Moscow News, a Russian newspaper, also pinpoints Turkey’s unwillingness to make peace. The article’s title clearly shows where Russian sympathies lie: "Kurds Want Peace, But Are Prepared for All Out War in Turkey" (Gankin 1). Perhaps the one million Kurdish residents of Russia have some weight in the press’s sympathy. "Kurds unshakable confidence" and phrases like this are more commonly found in the Russian press (Gankin 11). It may appear as though Russians were ready to jump to Kurdish support, but like other countries, Russia is reluctant to do so. Quarreling with Turkey could result in the loss of one of its largest trade partners (Gankin 11).

The entire Turk-Kurd conflict and its portrayal in American newspapers and journals force reflection on U.S. culture. The images mentioned earlier are very difficult for an American to conjure up. In America, people are surrounded by democracy, freedom of speech and religion, patriotism, and they are presented with freedom to choose every day. In Turkey, journalists are jailed for mentioning a forbidden people, and pro-Kurdish newspapers are continually shut down, sued, seized, and even bombed (Fonn 41, 42). Americans do not realize how fortunate they are to live in such a democratic society. After reading fourteen articles about two completely different rival societies attempting to share a mass of land, one can begin to comprehend and appreciate the basis of American society. Turkey may run a "brutal" army, but their harshness can be legitimated to an extent ("Turkish Wrongs" A26).

The Kurds’ desire for a land of their own is comparable to an altered group of Mexican-Americans living in Texas who decide to appeal the U.S. government for a piece of Texan territory to call their own. American citizens would be rightfully distraught at such a proposition, since the land belongs to them. However, they would have to learn to maintain peace, despite what uprisings may occur with the other ethnic group. The minority may be viewed as terrorists, just as the Kurds are in Turkey, but they too could raise a legitimate complaint. Suppose the group in Texas had been around since before the colonization of the states. What if they had their own language, race, and cultural practices? It would be no surprise if they wanted their own homeland in a country that had always discriminated against them. Fortunately, there is no such group in America, and for the most part people are treated equally. The main difference between Turkish and Kurdish cultures and American culture is the issue of freedom. Americans are lucky enough to live in the "land of the free," where diplomatic negotiations dispel disputes and rid hostilities.

The civil war in Turkey will probably not come to conclusion in the near future. Due to continued violence on both parts, Turkish refusal to submit to Kurdish cease-fires or negotiations, and stubbornness of both groups to compromise, the battle between Turks and Kurds promises to rage indefinitely.