Neither Europe has forgotten Sèvres, nor the US the Greater Middle East Project

Whether through the Eastern Question or the Treaty of Sèvres, European imperialism has long desired to expel the Turks from Anatolia and dismantle their state. 

The animosity harbored by Europeans against the Turks—who migrated west from Central Asia, settled in Anatolia, and established powerful states—is profound. Religion also plays a significant role in the intensity of Europe's resentment. Because Turks are Muslim, while Europeans are Christian. Turks are Easterners, while Europeans are Westerners. While Turks defend the Crescent, Europeans attack with Crusades…

Europeans have aimed to kill several birds with one stone through their policy of pushing back the Turks, and if possible, driving them back to the Central Asian steppes: They would remove the greatest obstacle to their imperialist ambitions. They would avenge the Crusades. They would gain easier access to the rich underground and surface resources of the East. 

The methods and tools used by the great powers of that era, who sought to weaken and partition the Ottoman Empire, are still employed by imperialist centers today. 

For instance, at that time, fueled by the strong winds of the 1789 French Revolution, minorities within the empire were exploited. The nationalist movement, starting from the Balkans, was highly effective in the dissolution of the empire. First, the Ottoman Christian subjects broke away, followed by the Ottoman Arabs. Alongside this, the Ottoman State was continuously burdened with debt, becoming dependent on the European countries that provided the loans. Beyond defeats in wars and territorial losses, the capitulations also accelerated the country's collapse. European imperialists, who were competing among themselves to seize colonies and fighting for raw materials, markets, and cheap labor, sought to liquidate the Ottoman State and divide its lands and resources.  

THE EUROPEAN STRUGGLE FOR COLONIES

Let us go back a bit before the period when the Eastern Question emerged… 

In the region that Europe calls the East/Orient, Arabs, Turks, and Persians reside. Europeans largely encountered the Turks for the first time during the Crusades. In the eyes of Europeans, the Turks arriving from Central Asia were different from other Easterners in many respects. Over time, the relationship—and the contradiction—between Turks and Europeans developed, multiplied, and diversified.

By the 16th century, considered the peak of the Ottoman Empire, it is certain that the Turks both upheld Islamic civilization, protecting it against the West, and were the most powerful Islamic state. Moreover, the Turks had reached deep into Europe, to the gates of Vienna, with the First Siege of Vienna in 1529. In addition to its high influence, the Ottoman State had a population reaching 14 million and ruled over 11 million square kilometers across 3 continents. These borders were wider than those of the Roman Empire. At that time, Spain had a population of 5 million and England 2.5 million. The Ottoman capital, Istanbul, with a population approaching half a million, was the largest city in Europe.

In the 16th century, the church in Europe was also experiencing its glorious days. It was very influential. It was highly organized. It was very wealthy. It added a religious and cultural dimension to the political, economic, and military hostility toward the Ottomans. It possessed half of the total wealth in Germany and three-quarters in France. In Italy, one-third of the land belonged to the church. The church was so intertwined with money and so corrupt that the bribes involved in papal elections were greater than those in the palaces. Europe would emerge from this corruption and decay through the Renaissance and Reformation in the 16th century, followed by the Age of Enlightenment, which began at the end of the 17th century and lasted until the end of the 18th century. One must not forget the Industrial Revolution, which began under British leadership in 1760 and spread to continental Europe and the US by 1840, nor the French Revolution of 1789, when discussing Europe's industrialization, capitalization, and attainment of an imperialist character. This power reached by Europe and the US was also seen in the two great world wars of the 20th century. 

WHAT HAD IMPERIALISM PROMISED TO WHOM?

During this period, the US replaced England, which had written the book on imperialism, diplomacy, and intelligence in the world. The Ottoman Empire was destroyed, and the Republic of Turkey was founded by Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and his comrades-in-arms. However, imperialism did not abandon its goals, nor the methods and tools it used. Ethnic, religious, and sectarian identities, as well as separatist terrorist organizations, replaced the minorities used against the Ottomans. Turkey's foreign debts have also been used exactly as the Ottoman Empire's foreign debts were used. 

After World War I, London held talks with the Kurds. At the Paris Peace Conference held in 1919, while the partition of Ottoman lands was on the table, a Kurdish delegation also attended the conference. In the mind of British imperialism, there was the idea of establishing a Kurdish state alongside Arab and Armenian states under British guidance. While the Ottoman State was being partitioned with the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920, the establishment of satellite statelets of imperialism was on the agenda. According to Articles 62–64 of the Treaty of Sèvres, a commission consisting of British, French, and Italian representatives would convene in Istanbul within 6 months after the treaty came into effect. This commission would determine the "local autonomy" of the region where Kurds were numerically dominant, east of the Euphrates, south of Armenia, and north of the Syrian and Iraqi borders determined by this treaty. The Ottoman State would accept and implement the decision of the commission within three months. In accordance with Article 62, if the Kurds in the region applied to the League of Nations by proving that the majority of the population in the region wanted to be independent of Turkey, Turkey would waive all its rights in this autonomous region with the approval of the League of Nations. 

Gazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk thwarted the plans of the imperialists. After the War of Independence, imperialism continued to attack with the Sheikh Said Rebellion, the Seyit Rıza and Dersim Rebellion, and after the 1960s, with ASALA and the PKK terrorist organization starting in 1984. It never hid this either. For example, in 1993, in the House of Lords in London, Lord Avebury said: "The PKK wants to establish an independent state first in Turkish Kurdistan, and then in the Kurdish regions of Iraq, Iran, and Syria. This state was promised to the Kurds by the US, England, and France in 1918. Therefore, it is very wrong for England and the US to recognize the PKK as a terrorist organization. The struggle between the PKK and Turkey should be handled within the scope of the Geneva Convention so that it gains the status of a regular war" (Nilüfer Yalçın, "The Last Link of the Eastern Question: PKK", Pazar Postası, 12. 03. 1994, Issue: 12, p: 8)

England was behind the Sheikh Said Rebellion. It was experiencing tension with Turkey due to the Mosul issue. France was behind the Dersim Rebellion. It had a problem with Turkey due to the Hatay issue. The ASALA terror that came to the fore in the 1960s was cut as if with a knife when the PKK terror began in 1984. 

Is the timing and Western support in all these rebellions, separatist movements, and terrorist acts a coincidence?