As State terror was being reinforced in Turkey, the
European Communities raised its relations with Ankara to a higher level
for the sake of “regional stability”
Despite the on-going violations of human rights, the
European Communities, in a common move of its all components, the
Council, the Commission and the European Parliament, have recently
adopted a compromising stand toward the Ankara regime. It seems that
the only snag which remains in the improvement of the Turco-EC
relations is the Cyprus Problem as if Turkey has already become a
“democratic” country.
In November, as the EC Council and Commission were
raising their relations with Turkey to a higher level, the European
Parliament adopted a rather moderate report and resolution, stressing
Turkey’s strategic importance for the Community in the region and
putting accent on the Turkish Government’s “good will” rather than its
scandalous human rights record.
First on November 9, the European Community and
Turkey announced plans for closer dialogue at the highest level after a
meeting of the Turkey-EC Association Council in Brussels. Nevertheless,
the one-day meeting was not free of the spectre of the Cyprus problem.
EC Foreign ministers led by British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, who
represented the EC’s rotating presidency, asked Turkish Foreign
Minister Hikmet Cetin for Ankara’s influence in resolving the Cyprus
problem.
Stressing that the status quo in Cyprus is
unacceptable, Hurd said: “Turkey asks us questions on
Bosnia-Hercegovina. We ask it questions on Cyprus. The Community
supports efforts made by UN General Secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
In a press release after the meeting, the Community
stressed that there was every reason to intensify cooperation and
develop relations with Turkey in accordance with the perspective
defined in the Association Agreement.
Although annoyed by the EC’s stand the Cyprus
Question, the Turkish side seems satisfied with the decision to raise
the level of dialogue and the Europe’s silence as regards the violation
of human rights.
Encouraged by this ouverture, Turkish Prime Minister
immediately rushed to Europe and met EC term-chairman John Major in
London on November 23 and EC Commission Chairman Jacques Delors in
Brussels on November 24.
After his visits, Demirel said: “I am leaving
Brussels confirmed in my belief that there is no problem which the
Community and Turkey cannot overcome together. I hope that this
improved atmosphere and the visible momentum in Turco-EC relations will
lead us to the full resumption of our relations of Association.”
As a matter of fact, as well the European
Parliament’s moderated stand towards the Turkish regime as the European
Community’s decision to improve bilateral relations at a higher level
is based on the following consideration taking part in the European
Parliament’s Resolution adopted on November 20: “It is important that
Turkey should remain an element of stability in a region marked by
grave political and ethnic problems.”
EUROPEAN COMPLICITY SERVES TO INSTABILITY
Info-Türk, in a press release it issued on the
occasion of Demirel’s arrival to Brussels, criticized this attitude, by
drawing the attention to the fact that the European Community is
returning step by step to an accomplice of the Turkish regime’s crimes
against the humanity:
“Turkey remains at present one of the regional
powers which carries on a bloody repression as regards grave political
and ethnic problems.
“The Turkish Army’s large scale operation in the
Iraqi territory, which has led even the reaction of the Iraqi Kurds
because of the bombing of Kurdish villages, is now taking as target the
opposition forces of Turkey, as well Kurdish as Turkish.
“The Turkish Army chiefs publicly advocate
‘annihilation of traitors and their support in the media, political
parties and associations.’
“The Turkish press is subjected to an unprecedented
self-censorship, Kurdish deputies are prosecuted un the menace of
capital punishment, books and newspapers confiscated, the regime’s
opponents are physically liquidated by obscure forces protected by the
Army. The number of assassinated journalists has already risen to
twelve.
“Amnesty International, in its report issued on
November 9 says: ‘There has been too much talk and too little action on
the part of the Turkish authorities. The Turkish Government has failed
to fulfil pledges to improve human rights and political killings and
torture in Turkey which continue unabated.’
“The recent amendment of the Criminal Trial
Procedures Law (CMUK), presented as a step forward ameliorates nothing
in reality. The Human Rights Association of Turkey describes this new
law as a step backward , because an opponent accused of committing
crime against the State may be kept under police detention without his
lawyer’s intervention for up to one month in the region of emergency
and for fifteen days out of this region.
“It means that torture will be carried out as
before, particularly in this period of chauvinist hysteria marked by
Demirel’s praises to the army and the police.
“The recent European softening, particularly that of
the European Community, as regards the Turkish regime is not of use in
stability in the region; on the contrary, European authorities are
turning step by step into accomplices of the crimes against the
humanity which will no doubt make the instability in the region deeper
and more irremediable.”
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT’S MODERATE RESOLUTION
The European Parliament’s report on Turkey, prepared
Belgian Socialist Raymonde Dury, was finally discussed at the plenary
session of the EC’s legislative body. As Ankara anticipated it, this
“relatively favorable” report was, on November 20, adopted
with some minor amendments. The most important of these amendment was
linking closer ties between Turkey and the EC to the solution of the
Cyprus problem.
As regards the Turkish military operation in
Northern Iraq, although several parliamentarians urged a firm reprisal
of Turkey “for violating international law,” the accepted text only
called on Turkey and the “the guerrillas fighting in southeast Turkey”
to halt fighting.
On November 17, during the first debate on the
report, in a move to guarantee the approval of the Dury’s report
without any change, Turkish officials in Ankara were mobilized sent
telegrams to Strasbourg, saying the judicial reform package was about
to receive Turkish Parliament’ approval.
Although some EP members, referring to Turkey’s “bad
human rights” record, wanted the resolution condemns it in strong
language, the European Parliament refused the motion and was contented
with saying in its resolution that Turkey step up measures against
torture practices, lift its capital punishment laws, improve its
dialogue with the Kurds and lift the emergency law rule in the
Southeast.
To satisfy Ankara, the highest European legislative,
referring to the terrorism-human rights dilemma, used a harsher
language as regards armed groups with the PKK at the top of the list.
What is more, the European Parliament preferred to
remain silent against the aggressive declarations made by Tunc Bilget,
the co-chairman of the Turco-EC Joint Parliamentary Committee, as
regards its precedent resolutions concerning the the repression in
Turkey.
The European Parliament had adopted, on September
17, two resolutions criticizing the Turkish security forces for
executing 205 people without trial since the beginning of 1992 and for
using the death of journalists as “a way to create censorship through
fear.” After having received the decision, Tunc Bilget had accused the
European Parliament in following terms: “In taking these decisions, the
European Parliament have ignored the warnings made by the Turkish
Parliament during the Istanbul meetings... and have attacked Turkey,
once more, in a way to resemble the words of PKK.”
Earlier, in the Istanbul meeting, held on June
29-30, Bilget had criticized the EP for its stance on the Newroz events
and claimed that the EP was “at best curiously uninformed or
misinformed in such a way as to lead us to suspect its motives.” (See:
Info-Türk, N°191, Sept 92).
The text of EP Resolution on Turkey
The following is the text of the European
Parliament’s resolution adopted on November 20 in Strasbourg:
The European Parliament:
A. whereas the operation of the various bodies set
up under the 1963 Association Agreement was only recently normalized at
the Association Council meeting of 30 September 1991,
B. having regard to trade and economic relations
with the European Community, which are particularly vital for Turkey,
and the broad national consensus in Turkey on the country's links with
Europe, as evidenced by the 1987 membership application,
C. whereas Turkey is a member of the Council of
Europe, a signatory to the Paris Charter of the CSCE, has just
concluded an agreement with EFTA and is a member of NATO: whereas,
therefore, Turkey is a signatory to several international pacts with
which it must comply,
D. having regard to the significant role which
Turkey has always played and will inevitably have to play in settling
the problems of the Near and Middle East, Asia Minor and the Caucasus
owing to its position in Europe and in Asia, its interest in securing
and consolidating peace in these regions and its determination to do so,
E. whereas it is important that Turkey should remain
an element of stability in a region marked by grave political and
ethnic problems and welcoming the Turkish Government's positive
attitude in the conflict between Azeris and Armenians in
Nagorno-Karabakh,
F. whereas it is in the interests of the European
Community and of the United Nations that a balance be maintained
between the regional powers in the Near and Middle East, as well as in
the Caucasus and Central Asia,
l. Considers that there is an urgent need to study
and improve relations with Turkey;
On Turkey’s application for EC membership
2. Stresses that the Community has embarked on a new
stage of integration with the imminent completion of the internal
market and the establishment of an economic, monetary and political
union as decided by the European Council at Maastricht on 8 and 9
December 1991 and set out in the Treaty signed on 7 February 1992 by
the Heads of State and Government;
3. Stresses that the rights and obligations
attaching to a country's status as a Member State will henceforth be
more considerable;
4. Notes that the fundamental issue of the
Community's future must be seen in the much broader context of the new
European order;
5. Draws attention, in this connection, to the
various types of organization already in existence such as the
Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the imminent
establishment of a European Economic Area, and the Council of Europe;
6. Points out that Turkey's application for
membership must be placed in the wider context of general deliberations
on the Community;
7. Concurs, as regards Turkey's membership
application, with the conclusions of the Commission's report and points
out - without casting doubt on Turkey's eligibility to join the
Community at some time in the future - that the membership issue is not
the subject of this Resolution;
8. Notes that Turkey does not at present fulfil the
conditions necessary for membership, particularly those of a political
nature, but acknowledges Turkey's determination to become progressively
more integrated into European structures;
9. Stresses, however, Turkey's importance as an
economic, trading and political partner, and takes into consideration
its cultural and religious diversity, which heightens the significance
of its role as a bridge between Europe and Asia;
The political and democratic situation
10. Notes that the general election of 20 October
1991, which testified to the multiparty nature and political maturity
of the Turkish regime, marked the beginning of a new era in the
country's political history, under an electoral law which continues to
restrict the right of political expression;
11. Welcomes the Coalition Protocol between the True
Path Party (DYP) and the Social Democratic Populist Party (SHP) and
their programme of government, which are intended as guarantees of the
process of democratization to be implemented in the spirit of the Paris
Charter and calls on the government to implement the announced reforms
and acknowledge the Kurdish situation;
12. Notes the coalition government's desire to
complete the review of the 1982 Constitution, which is at present
preventing the establishment of a constitutional democracy;
13. Notes the adoption by the Turkish Grand National
Assembly on 21 May 1992 of the law amending the provisions of the Code
of Penal Procedure, the law on the establishment and procedures of the
State security courts, the law on the powers and functions of the
police and the anti-terrorism law;
14. Calls for the promotion and broadening of
legislative measures, in line with the declared intention of the
present Turkish Government to guarantee freedom of expression and
association, reviewing penal law, detention procedures and the right to
a legal defence, taking steps to abolish torture, abrogating certain
provisions of the anti-terror law (of which Article 1 in particular
poses a serious threat to democracy) and the law on police powers and
responsibilities, and hopes that these draft laws will be quickly
adopted by the Turkish Grand National Assembly;
15. Welcomes the closure of Eskisehir prison, but
deplores the continuing use of torture and detention of political
prisoners, a general amnesty for whom, as called for by the human
rights organizations, could create a climate of reconciliation between
the state and its citizens;
16. Appeals to the Turkish military and security
forces, which still play a significant role in the country's political
life, not to undermine the efforts of the coalition government, and to
guarantee the right to life and put an immediate stop to the use of
torture;
17. Calls on Turkey to sign, ratify and abide by a
number of international conventions, particularly the ILO Convention on
the Protection of Workers' Rights (trade union rights), to ratify the
conventions on children's rights and the equality of women, and to
abolish capital punishment; welcomes the Turkish Government's
declaration of 5 May 1992 in which it lifted its reservations to
Articles 6, 8, 10, 11 and 13 of the European Convention on Human
Rights;
18. Condemns the acts of terrorism, particularly
those of the PKK, Dev-Sol and Hezbollah, perpetrated against innocent
civilians;
19. Acknowledges that the Turkish Government has a
perfect right to combat terrorism provided that human rights are fully
observed and the exercise of this right does not spark off a cycle of
violence; points out in this connection that the Community has
condemned the Turkish air force raids on Kurds in Iraq and the level of
the Turkish military response against the population of Kurdish areas
in Turkey which has resulted in death and injury to many innocent
citizens;
20. Calls on the Turkish Government to lift the
state of emergency in the South East of the
country forthwith and to enter into a dialogue with the Kurdish people,
with a view to a peaceful solution which will safeguard the rights of
the Kurds, in the knowledge that any solution based on repression is
doomed to failure from the outset;
21. Encourages the government's planned campaign to
educate the police and armed forces in human rights,
22. Favours granting Community financial assistance
to associations for the promotion and defence of human rights in Turkey
in order to encourage their activities, particularly those of the
rehabilitation centres for torture victims;
23. Notes that no previous Turkish Government has
paid proper attention to the Kurdish problem and that, on the contrary,
acts of repression have been committed by successive governments
against the Kurdish people;
24. Is convinced that this situation has been one of
the causes of the terrorism perpetrated by the PKK, a terrorist
organization which it has always condemned and whose actions will only
genuinely serve the interests of the Kurdish population when they
become non-violent ;
25. Notes that the new government intends to respect
the cultural identity of the Kurdish people as part of the process of
establishing democracy and national unity;
26. Considers that these specific rights should
include the right to speak, write and publish in Kurdish, use Kurdish
in courts of law and receive instruction in Kurdish and that this
should be accompanied by a programme of economic measures that would
really benefit the Kurds by promoting greater economic and social
development in the South-East region, which, as a result of the
problems confronting it (such as unemployment and illiteracy), provides
particularly fertile ground for the development of terrorist
activities;
27. Wishes to see a situation in which all
minorities in Turkey, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty
of Lausanne, are able to express their cultural identity without fear
of repression or discrimination, and supports similar legitimate claims
by Turkish minorities throughout the world;
28. Calls for archaeological excavations to be
carried out in advance, should new dams be constructed in South-East
Anatolia, so as to preserve the traces of the cultures and
civilizations which followed each other over the centuries on the
Anatolian Plain; calls on the Member States of the European Community
to bring this issue before the Council of Europe and UNESCO;
29. Recalls its resolutions concerning, in
particular, the Armenian question;
30. Calls for the right of all citizens to profess
and practise in public their religious convictions to be recognized and
safeguarded by law;
31. Highlights the oecumenical nature and
pan-orthodox mission of the Patriarchate in Istanbul as the leading
institution of Orthodoxy and hopes that measures can be taken in future
to avoid actions which may undermine its dignity and authority;
On the state of association
32. Notes that since the resumption of association
relations in 1989, as it recommended its above-mentioned resolutions of
15 September 1988 and 17 March 1989 - these relations having been
broken off after the military coup d'état of 12 September 1980 - one of
the association bodies (the Joint Parliamentary Committee) has been
able to resume normal operation on the basis of three meetings per
year, and is delighted that dialogue has thus been preserved between
Members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly and the European
Parliament;
33. Welcomes the Association Council meeting of 30
September 1991 - the first since the failed meeting of 26 April 1988 in
Luxembourg - and hopes that this body will henceforth work
constructively and find a way of resolving the existing economic,
commercial and political difficulties between the two partners which
were the subject of an Association Committee meeting on 6 December
1991;
34. Notes that statistics show a substantial
increase in trade, with, however, a considerable deficit on the Turkish
side, and recalls that the European Community has made a significant
effort to increase the export quotas of Turkish textiles to the
European Community;
35. Welcomes the recent signing of the cooperation
agreement between the EC and Turkey in the medical and health field,
the agreement on vocational training projects in the tourism and mining
sectors and numerous other sectoral agreements;
On the renewal of the association
36. Is convinced that the renewal of the association
is in both partners' interests;
37. Recalls that the problem of the Republic of
Cyprus - one of the unresolved political conditions of accession -
affects relations between the Community and Turkey and recalls the
Community's unwavering stance - expressed at various European Council
meetings, particularly the Dublin Council of April 1990, and in
Parliament's resolutions - in favour of restoring the unity,
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of
Cyprus and the withdrawal of the Turkish occupying army in accordance
with United Nations resolutions;
38. Refers to the Council declaration of 24 June
1975:
'It is in the Community's interests to maintain and
develop close association relations with Turkey and Greece's
application for EC membership must not affect EC-Turkey relations or
rights based on the agreement concluded between the EC and Turkey';
and the declaration of 26 June 1990:
'The European Council discussed the Cyprus question
in the light of the impasse in the intercommunal dialogue.
'The European Council, deeply concerned at the
situation, fully reaffirms its previous declarations and its support
for the unity, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Cyprus in accordance with the relevant UN resolutions. Reiterating that
the Cyprus problem affects EC-Turkey relations and bearing in mind the
importance of these relations, it stresses the need for the prompt
elimination of the obstacles that are preventing the pursuit of
effective intercommunal talks aimed at finding a just and viable
solution to the question of Cyprus on the basis of the mission of good
offices of the UN Secretary-General, as it was recently reaffirmed by
Resolution 649/90 of the Security Council';
39. Notes the joint declaration issued in Davos in
February 1992 by the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey concerning a
treaty of friendship between the two countries, and their encouragement
of the efforts by the UN Secretary-General to convene an international
summit with the aim of restoring Cypriot unity;
40. Is convinced that the democratization of Turkey
is directly linked to a solution to the Cyprus problem;
41. Recalls that the Commission's opinion on
Turkey's application for EC membership was accompanied by a draft
proposal, known as the 'Matutes package' (June 1990), the aim of which
was to promote the renewal and further development of the association
and to support cooperation in general and the stepping up of political
dialogue;
42. Recalls the philosophy of the Community's
revamped Mediterranean policy, which provides for an increase in. aid
to its Mediterranean partners, while respecting the development aims
and priorities which they have set for themselves and taking into
consideration the specific problems of each;
43. Recalls its resolution of 12 July 1991 on the
revamped Mediterranean policy, and in particular paragraphs 1, 2 and
11;
44. Notes that all the northern and southern
Mediterranean countries are currently receiving financial aid from the
Community whether they are linked to the Community by association
agreements (as is the case with Cyprus and Malta) or by cooperation
agreements (as is the case with Syria and Algeria);
45. Hopes that the problems which prevent Turkey
from being treated on an equal footing with the above partners of the
EC will be resolved as soon as possible;
46. Urges the Council to take the same stance on
Turkey as on the Mediterranean countries, provided the announced
reforms and democratization have in fact been carried out and the
Turkish occupying forces have withdrawn from the Republic of Cyprus as
part of a fair and lasting solution to the Cypriot problem, in
accordance with the UN re.solutions;
47. Recommends, in the short term, the
implementation of a number of specific measures to improve relations;
In the economic and commercial field
48. Hopes that the Turkish authorities will make
efforts to resolve the problem of counterfeits, which have a far from
insignificant impact on trade with the Community, put a stop to a
number of dumping practices, fulfil their obligations under the Treaty
of Ankara, particularly as regards Community agricultural exports to
Turkey and honour their undertakings to dismantle customs duties and
abolish charges having equivalent effect;
49. Proposes, moreover, that point ventures
between Community and Turkish undertakings be encouraged and, to this
end, supports the organization in the near future of a number of EC
Turkey trade weeks;
50. Hopes that Turkey will take the necessary
measures to create a climate favourable to investments by Community
undertakings;
In the field of culture. information and the
environment
51. Hopes that Turkish students .and civil servants
will be able to take advantage of scholarships offering the opportunity
to learn about the European Community (Robert Schuman scholarships or
the European Community visitors' programme) and welcomes the
Commission's recent proposals to this effect;
52. Believes that Turkey should be able to take
advantage of the Erasmus programme as regards student mobility and
increased cooperation between universities, which would make a positive
contribution to the mutual understanding of each other's culture,
religion and mentality;
53. Believes that, in view of the huge size of the
country, the opening in Istanbul and Diyarbakir of two branches of the
European Community's delegation (currently based in Ankara) would
provide an important stagingpost for information and cooperation with
the European Community;
54. Believes that Turkey must sign and ratify
international agreements on the environment to which the Community is
already a party, such as the 1979 Convention on migratory species of
wild animals and the 1974 Convention on the prevention of marine
pollution from land-based sources;
55. Considers that discussions between the European
Parliament and Turkey should deal, inter alia, with major projects and
their impact on the environment;
Freedom of movement for workers:
56. Calls on the Commission and the Council to
re-examine the question of freedom of movement for workers in the new
economic situation in the Community and Turkey and to arrange for
Turkish workers already resident in the Community and/or working in
Turkey to enjoy freedom of movement pursuant to Article 48 of the EEC
Treaty;
Political dialogue:
57. Places particular emphasis on the value and
importance of political dialogue between the European Community and
Turkey; gives every encouragement to relations between the
corresponding parliamentary committees, exchanges of information
between the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Human Rights and the
Human Rights Committee of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, and
further work in the joint parliamentary committee;
58. Calls on the Association Council also to debate
political issues of mutual interest to the two parties, such as, at the
moment, issues concerning Iraq, the situation in the Near and Middle
East, the problems in the Caucasus and security in the Mediterranean
region, and the Cyprus problem, without the latter issue encroaching on
the powers and responsibilities of the United Nations; supports, in the
context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, observer status for
Turkey in the Western European Union;
59. Notes the creation, on 3 February 1992 in
Istanbul, of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Council uniting, under
the aegis of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldavia,
Romania, Russia and Ukraine; hopes that this cooperation forum will
promote stability in the region and foster the development of relations
between the states signatory to the agreement on an equal footing;
60. Instructs its President to forward this
resolution to the Commission, the Council, European Political
Cooperation and the Turkish Government and Grand National Assembly.
ARMY’S TERROR POINTED AGAIN AT INSIDE OF TURKEY
Just after the operation in Iraqi territory, the
Turkish Army is carrying out preparations for a repressive campaign
within Turkey. The units withdrawn from Iraq are now being concentrated
along the Turkish side of the border.
Chief of General Staff Dogan Güres said on November
18 that the upcoming operation would not be limited to the Southeast
only. “The Army has highly trained and sophisticated anti-terror units.
We are ready to deal all terrorist organizations throughout the country
a heavy blow. Turkey is great country which will enter the 21st century
as a considerable force. No terrorist organization can ever hinder its
development,” he added.
Turkish newspapers reported on November 16 that,
starting off on the Cudi mountain range which continues into Iraq,
troops are to crack down on the Kurdish guerrillas in a stage-by-stage,
massive wipeout which is expected to also effect settlements such as
Cizre, Slopi, Nusaybin on the border and hundreds of mountain villages.
The region of Botan, described by the PKK as “the
center of the revolutionary movement” is expected to be among the main
targets.
According top the daily Hürriyet, the Turkish-Iraqi
border hereafter will not be a border of concrete division between the
two countries but a “flexible border” where both Turkish troops and the
Peshmergas will remain for security purposes. Even after the Turkish
withdrawal, troops will remain in the former buffer zone with Iraq. The
Turkish border may advance some 10 kilometers into Iraqi territory.
The Turkish military say that the only threat can
come from the Iranian border. For preventing any PKK assault from Iran
or Syria, Turkey invited the foreign ministers of both countries to
Ankara. Bothered by the proclamation of self-government by the Iraqi
Kurds, both Iran and Syria seem in a tactical understanding toward the
Turkish operation in Iraq.
Satisfied with the moderate reaction of Europe
against the Army’s operation in Iraq, the Turkish military and civil
leaders openly declare that they will annihilate not only the PKK
guerrillas in the country, but also their support in the media,
political parties and organizations.
As disclosed by the Kurdish deputies, many Kurdish
villages are being evacuated or destroyed, all suspects detained or
deported. What is more, the ethnic enmity in the towns inhabited by
Turks and Kurds is being systematically provoked by the hard-liners in
the administration and army.
On November 2, in the northeastern provincial
capital of Igdir, a demonstration by Kurdish people in protest against
the Iraqi Operation was immediately retaliated by the Turkish majority,
by wounding many Kurds, destroying about 200 workshops and 300
vehicles. The 36,000 population of this province consists of about 20
percent Kurds and 80 percent Azeri Turks, who control Igdir’s rich
agro-economy. After the incident military troops were deployed to the
town and hundreds of Kurds were arrested. During the operation, many
Turks shouting slogans praising the Army, police and State helped the
security forces to capture Kurdish demonstrators.
The most alarming of this anti-Kurdish histeria was
observed in Istanbul on November 19, during the funeral of four
policemen slain two days ago. Istanbul Governor Kozakcioglu issued the
following appeal to the population: “Let everybody who calls himself a
Turk and an Istanbulite come to funeral!” On this appeal, some 20,000
people marched with Turkish flags, singing the national anthem and
chanting slogans such as “Nationalist Turkey!”, “Revenge! Blood for
blood!”, “We want public executions”, “No to the judicial reform!”,
“Down with Communists!”, “Down with Separatists!”, “Down with Human
Rights!”, “Victory to Islam!”. Police car sirens accompanied the
chanting.
18 KURDISH DEPUTIES ON HUNGER STRIKE
Eighteen Kurdish deputies of the People’s Labour
Party (HEP), on November 12, launched an “indefinite hunger strike” to
protest conditions in southeastern Turkey and attract international
attention to inhuman developments in the region.
As going on hunger strike, HEP chairman Ahmet Türk
said that they would not participate in the functions of Parliament
during the hunger strike. In a nine-page communique, HEP deputies said:
“To be equal before all laws, Kurds are forced to accept the Turkish
identity. With a Kurdish identity, a person can only be a prisoner and
suspect in Turkey. While the state denied the Kurdish national question
a solution, it chose violence as a principle policy. The state forces
are treating the local residents as potential enemies.”
Followings are the highlights of the communique:
• A total of 250 people were murdered by
unidentified gunmen in Southeast Turkey and that villages were being
destroyed.
• 103 demonstrators were killed by security forces
in March (Newroz), and similar campaigns have continued since then.
• 30 people died and many others were wounded when
the provincial center of Sirnak was ripped apart with gunfire and
bombing on August 18. Although many innocent people were taken to
court, all were released after the first hearing. Similar attacks
continued in Dargecit, Mardin and in Kulp.
• On October 3, the town of Kulp was sprayed with
bullets, many vehicles and buildings were destroyed and burned down.
• Hebler (Hisar) and Shah (Caglayan) villages in
Cizre were evacuated by security forces in early October.
• Securtiy forces sprayed the city center of Varto
after a brief attack on the local security center on October 10.
• On October 19, military troops entered the Güza
village of Dargecit, Mardin. The troops demanded that villagers show
them PKK shelters in the region, and when they refused, nine were
detained, three were later found dead near the village.
• The Kaledibi village in Hani, Diyarbakir, was
bombed and later pulled to the ground by tanks by security forces on
October 20. Three villagers were executed on the spot. Following a PKK
attack on a military station in the Bogazköy village of Dicle,
Diyarbakir, all of the building except for the houses of village guards
were burned.
• Hamlets of the Karsiyaka village of Batman, the
Kaynak hamlet of Mardin and the Küllü village of Erzurum were all
sprayed with bullets by security forces during this period.
• Latin-American type death squads kidnapped people
from their houses, sometimes kill them on the street. They are taken
under custody en mass, questioned and tortured.
• State of emergency in eastern and southeastern
Turkey is close to being constitution with its continued extensions by
Parliament.
18 DEPUTIES FACE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
In retaliation, Ankara State Security Court
prosecutor Nusret Demiral announced on November 24 that he would appeal
to Parliament to lift the immunities of 18 deputies so that he may put
them on trial and demand a death sentence. “These people hold opinions
which violate the indivisibility of the state and nation,” he said.
The prosecutor charged that the communique,
disclosed as the parliamentarians went on hunger strike, reflected the
deputies held subversive opinions.
Accused by Turkish human rights activists of being
“thought-control police,” Demiral has already demanded death sentences
for 15 executives of the HEP, accused having acted on behalf of the PKK
during the party’s general convention.
Demiral said that although the SSC prosecution was
still investigating the alleged relationship between HEP and the
outlawed PKK, he already decided that there was a connection.
This notorious prosecutor, for years, has ordered
the arrest of many journalists and public figures, the confiscation of
many books and newspapers.
Although the present government came to power with
the promise of putting an end to such practices, Turkish newspapers
reported in August 1992 that Demiral’s duty was to be extended for the
third time, using the headline “No one could move Demiral from his
seat.”
STATE OF EMERGENCY EXTENDED ONCE AGAIN
The Turkish Parliament, on November 11, once again
extended the State of Emergency in 10 provinces in east and southeast
Turkey for a period of four months.
The provinces of Bingöl, Diyarbakir, Elazig, Hakkari, Mardin, Siirt,
Van, Batman and Sirnak inhabited by Kurds have been first under martial
law, later under state of emergency for over twelve years.
Out of 387 deputies present at the session,
the decision was taken with a majority of 294 votes. 91
parliamentarians voted against the extension, while two votes were
counted as invalid.
Interior Minister Ismet Sezgin argued that the state
of emergency could not be removed at a time when the PKK had reached
the point of dissolution in the region.
According to the Turkish Daily News of November 12,
it now appears impossible to raise confidence in the state among the
local people as long as this system prevails.
About 5 million people live in the Emergency Law region. The Regional
Governor Ünal Erkan, alias “super governor,” has extraordinary powers
at his disposal in an area where bans are much more than those in other
parts of the country, and punishments are more sever. The super
governor may decide, when he deems it necessary, to either unite or
evacuate any villages or hamlets in the region.
The super governor directs cooperation efforts in
the region amongst state security forces, the National Intelligence
Organization (MIT), the Special War Command (Turkish Gladio), the
village guards and Turkish Radio and Television (TRT). The opposition
claims that the clandestine fundamentalist groups, such as the
Hezbollah, operates in the region under the protection of the state of
emergency authorities.
The system of employing village guards was put into
practice in 1985 and a total of 36 thousand villagers have been
employed to fight the guerrillas. The cost of the village guards system
on the Turkish economy in 1992 alone is as high as 772 billion TL
(about 100 million Dollars). A recent survey on the issue has shown
that with the money spent on village guards since 1985, Turkey could
have opened 150 factories in the region, where unemployment is a major
social problem.
During the last vote, the DYP and SHP deputies,
defended the extension. The SHP, despite the fact that it based its
electoral campaign last year in the East on the promise of lifting the
state of emergency, voted for the third time in favour of extension.
JUDICIAL REFORM MASQUERADE
The amendments made in Criminal Trial Procedures Law
(CMUK) by the Turkish Parliament on November 18 , just before the vote
on the European Parliament resolution on Turkey, was portrayed by the
government as a new proof of democratization in the country. However,
legal experts and lawyers unanimously agreed that the so-called
“Judicial Reform Package” was no more than a window-show for the
coalition.
Despite its initial target for ensuring that all
suspects would be saved from lengthy and painful interrogation as much
as unwarranted punishment and its main goal of restoring Turkey’s
credibility in the field of human rights, according to the text adopted
by Parliament, twelve of the major reforms are not applicable to the
suspects of crimes against the State. In fact, the draft has been
changed by the hard-liners within the ruling DYP over months of lengthy
debates which followed the President’s initial veto of the original
bill on the military’s warning. The government, under pressure, agreed
to amend the original bill, which came out differentiating between
crimes committed by ordinary suspects and those committed against the
regime. The left-wing of the coalition too, at the end, yielded to the
pressure coming from the military and the DYP hard-liners.
The Turkish Human Rights Association (IHD) and the
Association for Contemporary Jurists (CHD) announced that not only did
the amendments protect only ordinary criminals, but they also
systemized torture for outlawed opponents of the regime, terrorist
suspects and political offenders.
The amendment has decreased detention period for
ordinary suspects to 24 hours while in such crimes committed by more
than two people, the period of custody may extended to four days.
In cases related to so-called “terrorist suspects”
though, the initial detention period has been set as 48 hours, which
may be extended to 15 days in the case the crime is committed by a
group.
If such suspects are caught in the region of State
of Emergency or in the provinces where there are State Security Courts,
they will be held under custody for four days and in mass crimes, the
detention period may be extended to 30 days.
According to the new CMUK, suspects will have the
right to be accompanied by lawyers while under police questioning but
this right will not be applicable for “terror suspects,” again in the
SSC and State of Emergency regions.
What is more, “all” suspects already had this right
under the previous law but it was not applicable since policemen in
practice refused to allow suspects to summon or see their attorneys.
What happened with the amendment was that this rights was tripped from
“terror suspects” who, in Turkey, often consist of prisoners of
conscience or political activists who have had no role in terrorism or
armed activities.
Besides, the new law authorized police to force
testimonies from suspects without their consent while the former law
denied to police the right to do so, which is actually a step backward.
The CHD declared that while ordinary criminals are
being spared harsh treatment or torture, persons detained because of
alleged political crimes will be systematically tortured. Moreover, the
IHD said: “Despite the fact that torture was long ago forbidden by
Turkish law even before the passage of the new amendment, torture is
still being widely practices in the country. Detainees mysteriously go
missing. Fourteen people have lost their lives under police detention
since the coalition came to power a year ago.”
A limitation in the authority of SSCs has also come
with the new bill. Accordingly, the SSC will only look after crimes of
collective smuggling, narcotic smuggling and terrorism. Violations of
the associations law and the wireless law will no longer be under SSC
jurisdiction. Strikes, lockouts, collective agreements and freedoms
related to meetings and rallies will also be out of SSC jurisdiction.
In practice, however, legal experts say these courts will be as strong
as ever and no change is expected in the controversial cases already in
the hands of SSC tribunals.
These courts will still be looking after crimes
committees against the state or terrorism crimes. They will still be
able to demand death penalties for parliamentarians only for making
speeches against the indivisibility of the state and/or order the
seizure of journals and books on grounds of containing separatist or
anti-state propaganda.
ISLAMIST SHOCK AT PARTIAL ELECTIONS
The pro-Islamic Welfare Party (RP) dealt a stunning
blow to all other political parties at the partial elections held on
November 1st, 1992 in 23 municipalities, by raising its votes to 24.52%
from 17.05 in 1991.
The biggest shock occurred in Istanbul where the RP
took 26.95% of more than half a million valid votes cast and turned
into the strongest political force of the biggest city of the country.
In Istanbul, the main opposition Motherland Party (ANAP) came second
with 24.43% as the coalition partners, Social Democrat Populist Party
(SHP) and the Correct Way Party (DYP), stayed at the third and fourth
ranks with respectively 17.31% and 14.24%.
As for the ensemble of the municipalities where
partial elections were held, the RP obtained 24.52% of the votes, it
was followed by the ANAP (22.85%), SHP (19.15), DYP (16.68%) and
Ecevit’s Democratic Left Party (DSP) (12.83%).
The victory of the RP is generally considered as a
reaction of the popular strata against the present situation in Turkey
which is marked by a rapid deterioration of living conditions. Although
the DYP-SHP coalition came to power last year with the promise of
pulling down the inflation rate, the recent data showed that it, with
7O%, climbed over the rate of the ANAP period.
The reports about the corruption and irregularities
at the municipalities controlled by the coalition parties have pushed
the population of slums to revolt and to replace them by RP candidates
who claims that only the mayors attached to religious values can put an
end to this situation.
In political field, the RP has remained since the
1991 elections as the only parliamentary force leading an efficient
opposition against the government’s repressive policies.
The Turkish media’s recent frenzy of sensation and
lottery, the pornographic programmes of the new private
televisions, the general upset of traditional moral values too have
played an important role in the new political choice of conservative
masses.
But the most important factor was without any doubt
the successful organisation and electoral campaign led by the RP at
popular quarters while the other parties were failing to show a
vitality and credibility.
After a series of shifts between political parties
in the Parliament to detriment of the SHP, this result of the partial
elections has shown that the future of the present government is not
certain and Turkey may find itself at any moment in a new political
crisis.
Although some political observers claim that Turkey
may be a second Algeria in near future, it is too early to attribute a
FIS image to the RP, because the latter has already been an integrated
part of Turkish political system for over twenty years and took part
few times in coalition governments, even once with Ecevit’s social
democrat CHP.
Nevertheless, despite its anti-imperialist and
anti-American rhetoric, it is also well known that the RP has close
religious, political, economic and financial relations with Saudi
Arabia, the champion of Islamic fundamentalism and the closest ally of
the USA in the Islamic world. RP leader Necmeddin Erbakan always speaks
of replacing the secular order by an Islamic order and attacks very
often the European Community and qualified it as the fifth column of
the Zionism.
So, it should never be ignored that the RP,
encouraged by the growing popular support, may adopt in future a more
radical fundamentalist stand and lead the country to the Saudi model.
What is more, with its political power in Turkey, it may play a bigger
role in imposing Islamic fundamentalism to the Turkic republics of the
former Soviet Union.
BOOK-HUNTING AT THE BOOK FAIR
As the European Community was improving its
relations with Turkey, the biggest city of this country , on November
9, turned into scene of an unprecedented book-hunting.
The 11th Annual Book Fair, organized by TUYAP, was
opened this year in Istanbul with the participation by over 250
publishing houses. However, the variety and enthusiasm at this year’s
fair was marred when police raided the site to confiscate books they
maintained were banned.
Police teams from the Istanbul Security Directorate
came to the fair to halt sales or display of some books, among them the
books of sociologist Dr. Ismail Besikci, author of a number of works on
the Kurdish question, and Musa Anter, the Kurdish journalist who had
been assassinated in September. They also detained some publishers and
two journalists who were trying to photograph the incident.
The police raid was protested by visitors and those
working at the stalls. Fair officials then called the Minister of
Culture Fikri Saglar, who then called the police to tell them to
release the publishers they had detained.
Besikci’s publisher, Yurt Yayinlari, had long been
notified that they were unauthorized to sell some of the scholar’s
works. In protest, they had hung a bunch of the books bound with a
chain from the ceiling; they were thus only displaying the books, not
selling them. Police officers not only took those books, but also other
books that were on display and for sale, already authorized by a court
of law.
The Human Rights Association booth at the fair
protested the banning of books and also had a large display of the
photographs of persons missing after they were detained by police.
TWO JOURNALISTS ASSASSINATED
Parallel to pressure on the opposition press, the
assassination of Kurdish journalists continued in November and the
total number of the murdered journalists in ten months reached 12.
First, on November 18, a former correspondent of the
daily Hürriyet, Hatip Kapcak, was assassinated in the town of Mazidag,
Mardin. Two days later, on November 20, the representative of the
weekly Gercek, Namik Taranci was shot dead by unidentified gunmen.
On these assassinations, the International
Federation of Journalists, in a letter addressed to Prime Minister
Demirel on November 23, said: “The IFJ is depressed to learn that
another two Turkish journalists have been murdered in the South East of
Turkey. On behalf of the 300,000 journalists which we represent
throughout the world, we most formally protest against the on-going
murders of journalists in Turkey and the complete impunity of the
murderers. Today, Turkey holds the world record in the killing of
journalists. We insist that your government take immediate measures to
protect the lives of journalists in your country and to order serious
enquiries and legal proceedings against those responsible for these
killings.”
6.5 MILLION MAGAZINES CONFISCATED
The daily Cumhuriyet reported on November 24 that
six and a half million copies of magazines had been seized by the
security forces during the past six years. Since 1987, 461 issues out
of 1,158 issues of 50 magazines that have appeared until now have been
seized, and these are still being kept in the security department
depots, according to the report.
Hundreds of law suits have been filed against the
editors of these publications seeking 440 years of prison sentences and
about TL 3.5 billion ($500,000) of fines.
