No one is quite sure of the exact rank of the two funds' holdings. Like the tides of finance, they ebb and flow, claiming new divisions while leaving others behind. Oyak Bank, for example, was recently sold to ING of the Netherlands, while they have made other moves with their steel operations. But there is little doubt, as the excerpt I am about to quote will make clear, that together they occupy a place in the very top echelon of Turkish corporations.
Any reader can find out more from this article in Fortune, or simply by Googling "OYAK Group" and scrolling through the vast hit list. OYAK (an acronym for Army Pension Institution) makes steel; it makes cars, roads, and buildings out of that steel; it makes portland cement for concrete, uses that concrete (and of course their own steel) to build hotels and businesses, runs the businesses themselves to make more money, uses their own banks to fund more businesses, builds golf courses, apartment blocks, and vacation villages for retired military officers, sells insurance to those businesses, builds and runs supermarkets, grows food for those markets, makes pesticides for the crops that it makes into food that it sells in its supermarkets--have you heard enough? They even own professional soccer and basketball teams. Oh, and all of their profits are tax-free.
The triumvirate formed by the army, big business and state bureaucracy is protected by a battery of constitutional and legal provisions. Its influence increases when the balance of political power leans in its favour, when opposition in society declines, or when - as has been the case in recent years - politicians are increasingly discredited. Under these circumstances the political parties, parliament, government and media merely acquiesce when the military disregard the rule of law.
Turkish corporations in South Kurdistan provide heavy financial support to KDP- and PUK-affiliated press and broadcast organizations in order to divert the people from the real face of current military operations, by broadcasting advertisement and variety programs.
Turkish corporations in South Kurdistan began to support KDP- and PUK-affiliated press and broadcasting organizations. At first, the KRG warned Southern media to cut off broadcasting about PKK. Now it has been revealed that Turkish corporations have given over $1 million as "gifts", for advertisement, and as tax.
Immediately following Turkish military operations in South Kurdistan, Turkish corporations which have marketing shares there, such as Oyak, Arçelik, Ülker, Nursoy, and Gürbağ, started to broadcast variety programs on TV, radio, and other satellite-based broadcast media which are affiliated with the KDP and PUK. It is believed that the goal of these attempts is to distract people from Turkish military operations.
KDP General Secretary Fadil Mirani's broadcast organs, such as Vin TV, are heavily supported by Turkish corporations.
Arçelik-Ülker and OYAK corporations organize street competitions and variety programs through Korek Telecom and AsiaCell telephone service operators, which are affiliated with KDP and PUK. These operators promise to give gifts ranging from $100 to $1,000 USD for text messages sent.
Arçelik had promised to deliver large appliances and electronics through the regional and satellite-based TV. As an example, when Turkish military operations began on 16 December, Arçelik started delivering large appliances, such as refrigerators, televisions, washing machines, ovens, and the like, to the people.
In addition, Arçelik is operating a lottery in South Kurdistan. Using the Bayram and New Year holidays as a pretext, it promised to give a brand new car, money, and such gifts to the people.
In addition to this, OYAK, Ülker, and the other Turkish corporations are arranging competitions on the streets where golden Kurdistan flags, made by Southern Kurdish jewelers, are delivered to people.
“Farzad Kamangar’s case highlights how human rights abuses have become routine in Iran,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Kamangar was tortured, subjected to unfair trial and now faces execution.”
On February 25, Branch 30 of Iran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced Kamangar to death on charges of “endangering national security.” The prosecution claimed that Kamangar is a member of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).
According to Kamangar’s lawyer, this trial violated the Iranian legal requirements that such cases must be tried publicly and in the presence of a jury. He also told Human Rights Watch that court officials ridiculed his requests that they follow mandated legal procedures.
Authorities arrested Kamangar in Tehran in July 2006 and held him in various detention centers in Kurdistan, Kermanshah, and Tehran. Kamangar claims that during a period of detention in Unit 209 of Evin Prison in August 2006, officials tortured him to such an extent that they had to transfer him to the prison clinic to receive medical attention. Kamangar also alleges torture and ill-treatment while in detention in the cities of Sanandaj in Kurdistan province and Kermanshah.
Kamangar’s lawyer told Human Rights Watch that the first time he met his client, Kamangar’s hands and legs were shaking as a result of mistreatment during detention and interrogation. Kamangar himself outlined the details of how he was tortured in a letter written from prison. Human Rights Watch has obtained a copy of this letter.
Prior to his arrest, Kamangar worked for 12 years as a teacher in the city of Kamyaran, where he was on the governing board of both a local environmentalist group as well as the local branch of the teachers’ association. Kamangar wrote for the monthly journal Royan, a publication of the Department of Education of Kamyaran. He was also a writer with a local human rights organization that documents human rights abuses in Kurdistan and other provinces.
Russia has evidence that citizens from NATO member states including the United States and Turkey fought for Georgia in the five-day August war, Russia's top investigator said on Monday.
A senior security official in Tbilisi dismissed the statement and said by law only Georgian nationals could serve in the country's armed forces.
Asked to list the nationalities of the foreign fighters it believes were involved, Alexander Bastrykin, head of the Prosecutor-General's investigative committee said: "America, the Czech Republic, Chechnya, the Baltic States, Ukraine and Turkey."
"Next time we should invade Turkey. It's nice down there," said the second soldier, who wore a ski mask and drank bottles of beer with Georgian lettering on them.
. . . One counter-intelligence official familiar with Edmonds’s case has told Vanity Fair that the F.B.I. opened an investigation into covert activities by Turkish nationals in the late 1990’s. That inquiry found evidence, mainly via wiretaps, of attempts to corrupt senior American politicians in at least two major cities—Washington and Chicago. Toward the end of 2001, Edmonds was asked to translate some of the thousands of calls that had been recorded by this operation, some dating back to 1997.
[ . . . ]
. . . Vanity Fair has established that around the time the Dickersons visited the Edmondses, in December 2001, Joel Robertz, an F.B.I. special agent in Chicago, contacted Sibel and asked her to review some wiretaps. Some were several years old, others more recent; all had been generated by a counter-intelligence that had its start in 1997. “It began in D.C.,” says an F.B.I. counter-intelligence official who is familiar with the case file. “It became apparent that Chicago was actually the center of what was going on.”
[ . . . ]
In her secure testimony, Edmonds disclosed some of what she recalled hearing. In all, says a source who was present, she managed to listen to more than 40 of the Chicago recordings supplied by Robertz. Many involved an F.B.I. target at the city’s large Turkish Consulate, as well as members of the American-Turkish Consulate, as well as members of the American-Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associates.
In the meantime, another important angle to Edmonds' case has opened up. Earlier this week, the New York Post ran a Page 6 piece, ODD FILM BY HILLARY BACKER, which highlights the close relationship between Hillary Clinton and Chicago-based Turkish businessman Mehmet Celebi.
Celebi, "one of the national leaders of the Turkish-American community in the US," is a key fundraiser for Clinton, and is one of Clinton's Chicago delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Celebi was also heavily involved in the controversial 2006 movie "Valley of the Wolves: Iraq" which has been widely regarded as "anti-Semitic, anti-American, conspiratorial agitprop."
Mehmet Celebi is also a key figure in the Sibel Edmonds case - he is heavily involved in the narcotics trade in the US and the corruption and bribery of high-level US officials.
According to Celebi's bio:
"He has been serving as the President of the Turkish-American Cultural Alliance (TACA) since 2000, and as Member of the Board/Vice-President of the Assembly of Turkish-American Associations (ATAA), a Washington, D.C. based umbrella organization representing 57 organizations."
The Chicago-based Turkish-American Cultural Alliance (TACA) and the Assembly of Turkish-American Associations (ATAA) both figure prominently in Sibel Edmonds' case. Both are reported to be front groups for criminal activity involving illegal weapons sales, narcotics trafficking, and the bribery and corruption of high level US officials.
Mehmet Celebi first came to my attention in my first interview with Sibel in January 2006. My notes from that interview read:
"Sibel mentioned the mafia nature of the Turkish business establishment - in particular she mentioned Celebi as one of the key players - apparently they are involved in an arms trading cartel, and they ship narcotics in the cargo of their planes as they zoom around.
"One of the Celebi family members (Mehmet Celebi) is chairman of the Turkish American Cultural Association (TACA) in Illinois. (Sibel has often pointed to both Chicago, and also to 'cultural exchanges')."
TACA and the ATAA were both targets of an FBI counter-intelligence operation investigating the corruption and bribery of high-level US officials from 1997 onward, including the period when Celebi had high level positions at these organizations.
Well-versed in international policies, Emanuel acknowledges the importance of Turkey in such a strategic part of the world. "I encourage the continuation of strong ties between Turkey and Israel and would urge European governments to admit Turkey into EU as soon as possible," he said. "Such a move would benefit the U.S. which is highly appreciative of Turkey's membership in NATO."
Emanuel said he would support the construction of the pipeline to go through Turkey. He also touched upon the Cyprus controversy as a difficult challenge and said he did not know enough about the Turkish point of view dealing with the Armenian conflict of 90 years ago
Mehmet Celebi, TACA's president promised to send him material on the Ottoman-Armenian conflict and encouraged him "to keep politicians out of the debate and analysis of historical events that took place during the demise of the Ottoman Empire." Historians, not politicians, should research and write about this subject, was the consensus of those attending the meeting.
"Turkey is a very significant country for us. We need to have good relations with Turkey. The biggest contribution to this will come from Hillary. There will be great progress in relations if Hillary is elected."
He went on to thank the many Turks who "contribute a lot to Hillary's election campaign" and assured readers that relations with Turkey will prosper under a Hillary administration.
Trip to the heart of Kurdistan
"Europe must see with their eyes what's happening in Kurdistan"Bozan Tekin
Commander in chief of the guerrillas of the PKK
From the mountains of Qendil, the guerrilla commander Bozan Tekin said that the struggle of the PKK against Turkey has succeeded in imposing a change of mentality in the Kurds, which previously were ashamed of their culture and that thanks to Abdula Ocalan Kurds have learned to feel and also people. In this interview, he lamented that "unfortunately, no European government has offered us a hand yet."
[by] Karlos Zurutuza
The commander Bozan Tekin greets us with a smile and a friendly handshake at our arrival at one of the humblest villages in Qendil. He is interested in the operation that has enabled us to overcome the information blockade imposed by the Kurdish autonomous government of South Kurdistan, and then invites us to sit down to carry out the ritual of tea. In this adobe house with a roof of wood and straw, Tekin confessed himself an admirer of the Russian classics and, especially, George Orwell, all of whose work he [Tekin] claims to have read. Probably he had much more time during the 20 years that he spent in Turkish prisons.
Soon he turns on his laptop. He wants to give us some pictures taken by Turkish soldiers that he has recently obtained. He does not specify whether they [the photos] had reached a Kurdish conscript or if they [the guerrillas] have snatched them from a Turkish soldier, dead or alive. In them appear tanks and helicopters in the military quarters; young soldiers posing with heavy weapons near the Turkish flag or next to bodies of guerrillas of the PKK, whose guts they have emptied and whose intestines were entangled in the undergrowth. "May the whole world see it," Tekin asks us (Soon they will be displayed in zinarala.blogspot.com).
For the interview we move away from the village and so that it avoids being identified and then bombed by Turkish aircraft. Two guerrillas accompany us, a Kurd from Damascus and a Kurd from Sirt (North Kurdistan). We take the camera and tripod, and they do the same in an almost simultaneous manner. We record the commander and they us. That's the deal.
"They say that internationalism died with Che Guevara, but this interview is good evidence that it is not true," says Tekin, with a smile that imprisonment and life in the mountains have not yet been able to erase.
The Turkish army has escalated attacks on Qendil in recent weeks. What do you think is the reason?
Erdogan's AKP has lost its prestige, for that reason these operations are carried out. They [the AKP] have disappointed the Islamists, the Turks and the Kurds who voted for them, and now they want to seek support among the nationalists. Moreover, the PKK has carried out numerous operations successfully and this has undermined the morale of the Turkish army. On the other hand, we are just a few months from the elections in Turkey, so the party in power will be used thoroughly so that there be no doubt about the strength of its "fight against terrorism."
But you say they are completely deployed and away from the camps.
It is true. The situation has not affected us but we have adapted to it. Today we have nearly 10,000 men and our response capability is greater than ever. Neither Alexander the Great nor Saddam Hussein could ever control this region, and it is clear that Erdogan and his generals will not get it either.
In addition to the guerrillas, it seems that people have been mobilized also in major cities of northern Kurdistan. Is this a new uprising of Kurds in Turkey?
Without a doubt. People on the street have responded to the torture inflicted on our leader, Abdullah Ocalan. He was tortured both physically and psychologically, and has said repeatedly he prefers to die than be insulted. He's been 10 years locked up and deprived of all his rights. But our people continue to support him and increasingly mobilize themselves more. Following the most recent torture, Erdogan traveled to Amed (Diyarbakir) and found a city paralyzed by the strike. The response has been massive in Wan (Van), Colamerg (Hakkari), Mus ... People have said "enough" and went into the street. Any Kurd that reacts now is a guerrilla.
However, Erdogan is co-chair of the "Alliance of Civilizations' together with Rodriguez Zapatero. What do you think about this?
It is at least ironic that someone who complains about the assimilation of peoples as an 'aberration', ignores, deprives of all rights and represses 20 million Kurds in their own country. Zapatero is therefore complicit in the barbarity suffered by our people and that should make you think about both him and the other European leaders. Zapatero and Erdogan are leading a false project with which false Turkey seeks, in turn, to deceive the EU. Simply, they agreed to exterminate the Kurds.
The PKK has been fighting for decades. Did it get something?
The PKK has been fighting ideologically for 35 years and for 30 with arms, under the leadership of Abdullah Ocalan. We have offered a hand towards peace on more than one occasion but, far from negotiating, Turkey has responded to us with a state of emergency. There is no difference between the Turkish generals and Franco or Salazar. We are fighting against Turkish imposition and it is more than evident that there has been a significant change in the mindset of the people. The Kurds felt ashamed of their culture, of being Kurds. Until we learn to be `best Turks' at school. But Apo (Ocalan) taught us to feel ourselves not only Kurds but also persons. Our people have become aware of their own existence and that we owe in great measure to our leader, Abdula Ocalan. He opened the way and we will support him until the day of his death.
Do you dream about an independent Kurdistan?
We are pursuing a democratic confederalism. The PKK is an internationalist movement and has in its ranks fighters of many other nationalities. Among us there are Kurds, but also Russians, Germans, Armenians ... and even Turks. We are not nationalists, not fighting for statehood but for our rights and our freedom. We fight against imperialism and we believe in real democracy based on socialism and coexistence between peoples. We have always lived alongside Persians, Turks and Arabs, and we think that we can continue to do so but in a peaceful manner.
But the Kurds have fought among themselves until recently and are still divided.
It is true. The PKK was at war against Barzani's KDP and it, in turn, with Talabani's PUK. We have created the KCK (Democratic Confederation of Kurdistan) to bring together the Kurds of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran into a single body that promotes democratic and socialist ideals. PJAK in East Kurdistan is one of its components and struggles to replace the theocracy in Tehran with a federal government that respects the rights of all the peoples of Iran. There is also the PYD, the most important party among the Kurds of Syria, that shares the ideals of Ocalan. Furthermore, both Barzani and Talabani are aware of the support that KCK's ideas are having in South Kurdistan.
What is the first step towards a resolution of this conflict?
The Turkish government has to withdraw or negotiate peace with us. The PKK became very powerful in the 90s and today it's not only the guerrillas but [it's] the entire community. We have 22 deputies in the parliament in Ankara and the Turks still remain determined that there are no Kurds in Turkey. The laws are of no use in Kurdistan because the state of war continues.
Would Turkey's entry into the EU improve things?
If Turkey had to import the European model of democracy, of course. Unfortunately, no European government has offered us its hand yet. Turkey interests Europe and the United States by the potential of its market and, above all, for its strategic location, which gives it a predominant role in NATO. Without going much further, Ankara bombards us using the information about our situation that the United States offers it. Until this changes, we will continue to be victims of the disastrous Western policy in the Middle East.
For now, both the EU and United States considers you "a terrorist group."
The Turkish Constitution makes no mention of the Kurds. Arrests and torture occur on a daily basis. Ankara's repression during the last decades has claimed thousands of destroyed villages and four million displaced. Among the multitude of Kurds murdered there are about 5,000 dead through "bizarre circumstances", many of them victims of the dirty war of Ergenekon, orchestrated by the same Turkish state. You had Guernica; we have Diyarbakir, Mus, Sirnak, Wan ... And the remains of the missing still continue to appear. Europe considers us as "a terrorist organization" since 2000, since the Turkish government controls the means of Western information, it "drinks" from them then. The people, the European parliamentarians, would have to come here and see what is happening with their own eyes.
The war balance for the month of October
To our people and the public!
During the month of October there were 31 contacts from 28 operations that were initiated by TSK against our HPG forces. As retaliation against these operations, our HPG forces initiated 23 operations including Bezele, the operation against police in Amed, Kato and Dersim. Within the month of October 148 enemies were killed, whereas 18 guerrillas were martyred in the clashes that occured.
While there weren't any casualties among our guerrilla forces through aerial attacks, artillery, and mortar fire, several residential areas and gardens belonging to civilians were damaged and more than 150 animals were killed. In addition, Kurdish land was burned through such attacks.
Operations: 28
Joint Turkey-Iran operations: 1
Air attacks: 11 (Zagros - 4; Xakurkê - 3; Xınerê - 2; Zap - 2)
Artillery and mortar attacks: 8 (Haftanin - 2; Xakurkê - 2; Zap - 2; Zagros - 1; Metina - 1)
Contacts: 31
[HPG] operations: 23
Enemy forces killed: 148
Lieutenants: 2
Special team: 2
Police: 7
JITEM members: 2
Soldiers: 135
Identified enemy wounded: 86
Lieutenants: 1
Soldiers: 54
Police: 30
Special team: 1
Destroyed military vehicles: 2
Downed aircraft: 1 (F-16)
Downed helicopters: 1 (Sikorsky)
Damaged aircraft: 1 (F-16)
Damaged helicopters: 1 (Cobra)
Confiscated materials
HK 33 individual weapon: 17 pieces
HK 33 Raxtı: 2 pieces
Body armor: 1 piece
Military bag: 2 pieces
Satellite phone: 2 pieces
Our martyred comrades: 18
32 new fighters joined HPG
Thirty-two guerrilla candidates, who joined the new fighter training cycle under the guerrillas' control, qualified to join HPG.
Thirty-two guerrilla candidates finished their training successfully in the "Şehit Gulbahar - Selma Kaya" new fighter training cycle.
Zelal Ceger, from the People's Defense Center, who spoke at the graduation ceremony, said: "The joining of the guerrilla candidates [to HPG] is the most meaningful response to the fascist Turkish state and its fascist army."
Ceger mentioned that with such a meaningful joining and successfuly completed training, guerrilla candidates promised a practice that will fit into the Kurdish people's heroic struggle.
After the graduation ceremony, the new HPG members sang songs and danced; then they went to their practice areas.
“Think what would happen if we did not regiser our children . . . Imagine millions from Amed to Istanbul, from Dersim to Kars, to Iğdır, to Ardahan are on the streets. Who can hold back this huge power? . . . They will not go to courts, they will not send their children to schools, they will not register their names and they will not register their houses. What would happen? The system would go bankrupt. Civil revolution without fighting with the police, the military. Get ready for those days.”
Alınak, who will stay in jail about fifty days, describes entering prison as one’s duty in Turkey in the fight against the existing anti-democratic practices.
The court punished him for the crime of praising the crime and the criminal when he proposed to give the names of Deniz Gezmiş, Vedat Aydın and Musa Anter to various streets and parks. While Deniz Gezmiş, one of the leaders of Turkish People’s Liberation Army, was hanged in 1972 for his political activities, Vedat Aydın and Musa Anter were murdered for their political activities conducted in the name of the Kurdish people.
Alınak was also fined for his speeches about the prison conditions of PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan.
He says he refuses to buy his freedom. That is why he chooses to go to prison instead.
According to Alınak, while he is punished for proposing to give the names of Deniz Geçmiş, Vedat Aydın and Musa Anter to streets and parks, the names of Mustafa Muğlalı, a four-star general sentenced to life in prison in 1944 for executing 33 peasants by shooting, and politicians Adnan Menderes and Celal Bayar, who were found guilty by the courts, are given to many facilities and places.
It should be much more apparent to European diplomats today, that the relative leniency with which the European Union is approaching the Erdogan government's sins against democracy and human rights, is being used to the advantage of the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP.
We have been trying for weeks to warn that selective criticisms leveled at Turkey by EU officials are disheartening pro-EU elements in Turkey. For example, the same officials who made negative remarks against the AKP over the closure case, have not been vocal in the face of some highly telling, and to that extent worrying, salvos from government quarters.
[ . . . ]
However [AKP's] "sins against the Copenhagen Criteria" are increasing, yet no one, other than European deputy Joost Lagendijk that is, appear to have much to say on this front. Just a look at the government's recent record should send shivers up European spines. Especially among those who invested so much hope in this government.
* Prime Minister Erdogan calls for media boycotts because of the way it reported the Deniz Feneri corruption case in Germany, an extension of which clearly existed in Turkey and involved quarters very close to the AKP.
* Prime Minister Erdogan justified the use of sawed-off shotguns by individuals against pro-Kurdish demonstrators, saying citizens have the right to protect themselves. The fact that he is inciting armed violence does not appear to concern him much.
* Prime Minister Erdogan started to play the ultra-nationalist and told pro-Kurdish politicians to either respect the flag and nation or leave the country. He conveniently forgot there were times his party had been attacked for being "Islamist" by opponents who said, "Either respect secularism or go to Saudi Arabia."
* In the same vein, AKP Yozgat deputy Abdulkadir Akgul while arguing with pro-Kurdish deputy Hasip Kaplan in Parliament, went as far as saying, "I would of course take pleasure in shooting those who are against their own state and nation."
* State Minister Nimet Cubukcu is more concerned with slinging mud at Sarah Ferguson and the ITN network for exposing abuse in centers for disabled children in Turkey, than explaining what she intends to do to bring these centers up to EU standards. Having been caught out two years ago in a similar incident in Malatya, exposed by the Turkish media on that occasion, she clearly has done little in the meantime to improve standards in these centers.
* Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul came out with remarks justifying what amounts to ethnic cleansing by saying that if Greeks and Armenians remained in Anatolia, Turkey would not be a national state today. He totally disregarded the pain and suffering of Greek, Armenian and Turks alike in the past, and left open the question of his opinion on the Kurdish problem in this country, relative to his despicable views.
* The government continues to be reluctant to act in the face of mounting police brutality, torture, and abuse of women, which continues unabated, with impunity, and remains committed to the tradition of protecting those guilty of the crimes. When it does act, on the other hand, it does not do so on its own initiative, but because the issue has caused a major public outcry.
* The Prime Ministry tries to ban "undesirable reporters" from covering Prime Minister Erdogan by canceling their accreditation, even though it can not accuse the banned reporters of writing untruths or of fabrication. The government followed the lead of the General Staff in this respect, showing once again how much of a defender of the traditional status quo it has become. The bottom line here is that Mr. Erdogan wants "AKP friendly news" and loses control, both verbally and otherwise, when he does not get it.
[ . . . ]
The whole idea behind the EU perspective is positive change under the umbrella of lofty ideals, which include human rights and press freedom. If this does not happen, then the EU will start to lose its meaning, even for Turks who have supported this perspective strongly hitherto.
The present situation and suggestions for a solution
The Kurdish-Turkish relations in Turkey play a key role with a view to a solution of the Kurdish question. In this respect, the Kurds in Iraq, Iran, and Syria have only a limited potential and can probably only support a possible overall solution. The Kurds in Iraq give a very good example. The semi-state Kurdish autonomy is indirectly the result of worldwide efforts on the part of Turkey, the U.S. and their allies to denounce the PKK as a terror organization. Without consent by Ankara this “solution” would not have been possible. The chaos caused by this solution is obvious, and the result unforeseeable. It is also unclear, which direction the feudal-liberal Kurdish national authority in Iraq will take in the long run and how it will affect Iran, Syria, and Turkey. There is the danger of a regional escalation of the conflict similar in shape to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A flare-up of Kurdish nationalism might even radicalize the Persian, Arab and Turkish nationalists further, making a solution of the problem more difficult.
This prospect needs to be contrasted with a solution free of nationalist aspirations, which recognizes the existing territorial borders. In return, the status of the Kurds will be put down in the respective constitutions thus warranting their rights concerning culture, language, and political participation. Such a model would be largely in accordance with the historical and societal realities of the region.
In the light of this, making peace with the Kurds seems inevitable. It is highly improbable that the present war or any future war will yield anything else but a Pyrrhus’ victory. Therefore, this war must be put to an end. It has been lasting too long already. It is in the interest of all countries of the region to follow the example of other countries and take the necessary steps.
The Kurds only demand that their existence be respected; they demand freedom of culture and a fully democratic system. A more humane and modest solution is impossible. The examples of South Africa, Palestine, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Corsica demonstrate the ways in which different modern countries have been able to solve or handle similar problems in the course of their history. Furthermore, these comparisons help us to find a more objective approach to our own problems.
Turning our backs to violence as a means of solving the Kurdish question and overcoming the repressive policy of denial at least in part, are closely connected to the fact that we upheld the democratic option. The ban on Kurdish language and culture, education and broadcasting is in itself a terrorist act and practically invites counter violence. Violence, however, has been used by both sides to an extent that goes clearly beyond legitimate self defense.
Many movements today take to even more extreme methods. However, we have declared unilateral ceasefires several times, we have withdrawn large numbers of our fighters from Turkish territory, and thus refuted the accusation of terrorism. Our peace efforts, however, have been ignored over the years. Our initiatives never met a response. Rather, a group of Kurdish politicians sent out as ambassadors of peace was detained and handed long prison terms. Our efforts for peace have wrongly been interpreted as weakness. There is no other explanation for statements like the PKK and Ocalan are practically finished or, our initiatives were only tactical. So they claimed that they only needed to proceed a little bit tougher in order to smash the PKK. So they increased their attacks on the Kurdish liberation movement. Nobody asks, however, why they never succeeded? It is impossible to solve the Kurdish question by means of violence. The attitude described above also contributed to the failure of the ceasefire that began on October 1, 2006. I had called on the PKK to offer this ceasefire. Some Intellectuals and non-government organizations had demanded such a step. However, again it was not taken seriously. Instead, racism and chauvinism were stirred up creating an atmosphere of confrontation. Besides, we must not forget that the AKP also uses this issue to play down their own problems with the Kemalist elite by making compromises with the Army and speculating on the escalation of the Kurdish problem. Presently, the government restricts itself to some half-hearted measures in order to wrench some concessions from the EU. They are trying to win time with the help of the harmonization laws enacted in the context of the EU accession process. In reality, these supposed reforms are just waste-paper.
The exacerbating conflict is cause for concern. Nevertheless, I will not give up my hopes for a just peace. It can become possible at any time.
I offer the Turkish society a simple solution. We demand a democratic nation. We are not opposed to the unitary state and republic. We accept the republic, its unitary structure and laicism. However, we believe, that it must be redefined as a democratic state respecting peoples, cultures and rights. On this basis, the Kurds must be free to organize in a way that they can live their culture and language and can develop economically and ecologically. This would allow Kurds, Turks, and other cultures to come together under the roof of a democratic nation in Turkey. This is only possible, though, with a democratic constitution and an advanced legal framework warranting respect for different cultures.
Our idea of a democratic nation is not defined by flags and borders. Our idea of a democratic nation embraces a model based on democracy instead of a model based on state structures and ethnic origins. Turkey needs to define itself as a country, which includes all ethnic groups. This would be a model based on human rights instead of religion or race. Our idea of a democratic nation embraces all ethnic groups and cultures.
Against this background let me summarize the solution I propose:
* The Kurdish question is to be treated as a fundamental question of democratization. The Kurdish identity must be put down in the constitution and integrated in the legal system. The new constitution shall contain an article of the following wording:
“The constitution of the Turkish republic recognizes the existence and the expression of all its cultures in a democratic way.” This would be sufficient.
* Cultural and language rights must be protected by law There must not be any restrictions for radio, TV, and press. Kurdish programs and programs in other languages must be treated by the same rules and regulations as Turkish programs. The same must be true for cultural activities.
* Kurdish should be taught in elementary schools. People who want their kids to get such an education, must be able to send them to such a school. High schools should offer lessons on Kurdish culture, language, and literature as elective courses. Universities must be permitted to establish institutes for Kurdish language, literature, culture, and history.
* The freedom of expression and organization must not be restricted. Political activities must not be restricted or regulated by the state. This must also be true in the context of the Kurdish question without restriction.
* Party and election laws must be subjected to a democratic reform. The laws must warrant the participation of the Kurdish people and all other democratic groups in the process of democratic decision-making.
* The village-guard system and the illegal networks within the state-structures must be disbanded.
* People who have been evicted from their villages during the war must be allowed to return without impediments. All administrative, legal, economical, or social measures necessary must be met. Furthermore, a developmental program must be initiated In order to help the Kurdish population to earn a living and improve the level of living.
* A law for peace and participation in the society shall be enacted. This law shall enable the members of the guerilla, the imprisoned, and those who are in exile, to take part in the public life without any preconditions.
Additionally, immediate measures on the road to a solution need to be discussed. A democratic action plan must be formulated and put into practice. In order to reconcile the society truth and justice commissions shall be set up. Both sides must find out what they have done wrong and discuss it openly. This is the only way to achieve the reconciliation of the society.
Whenever states or organizations cannot make progress anymore, intellectuals may serve as mediators. South Africa, Northern Ireland, or Sierra Leone has made positive experiences with this model. They may take the role of arbitrators, with the help of whom both parties can be moved in the direction of a just peace. The commissions may include intellectuals, lawyers, physicians, or scientists. When the day comes that we put down our arms, it will only be into the hands of such a commission, provided it is a commission determined to achieve justice.
Why would we surrender our arms without the prospect of justice? The beginning of such a process also depends on goodwill and dialogue. Should indeed a dialogue come about, we will be able to begin a process similar to the last unlimited ceasefire.
I am prepared to do all I can. The government, however, needs to show its will for peace. It needs to take the initiative. This is what they need to do, if they do not wish to be responsible for the consequences all on their own.
In case our efforts for a peaceful solution might fail or a sacrificed to day by day politics, power struggles or profit-seeking, the present conflict will exacerbate and its end will become unforeseeable. The chaos following will see no winners.
At last, Turkey needs to master the strength to recognize its own reality, the reality of the Kurdish existence and global dynamics. A state which denies reality will eventually and inevitably find itself on the brink of existence.
It is crucial, therefore, to take the steps that will lead this country to a lasting peace.
Abdulla Ocalan
One-person-prison, Imrali Island
New strategic, philosophic, and political approaches of the Kurdish liberation movement.
A comprehensive treatment of the main strategic, ideological, philosophical, and political elements at the base of the process of change cannot be accomplished in this essay. However, the cornerstones can be outlined as follows:
* The philosophical, political and value-related approaches that the newly-aligned PKK embraces find adequate expression in what is called “democratic socialism”.
* The PKK does not derive the creation of a Kurdish nation-state from the right of self-determination of the peoples. However, we regard this right as the basis for the establishment of grassroots democracies, without seeking new political borders. It is up to the PKK to convince the Kurdish society of their conviction. This is also true for the dialogue with the hegemonial countries exercising power in Kurdistan. It is to be the basis for a solution of the existing issues.
* The countries that presently exist here need democratic reforms going beyond mere lip service to democracy. It is not realistic, though, to go for the immediate abolition of the state. This does not mean that we have to take it as it is. The classic state structure with its despotic attitude of power is unacceptable. The institutional state needs to be subjected to democratic changes. At the end of this process, there should be a lean state as a political institution, which only observes functions in the general field of security and in the provision of social services. Such an idea of the state has nothing in common with the authoritarian character of the classic state, but would rather be regarded as a societal authority.
* The Kurdish liberation movement is working for a system of democratic self-organization in Kurdistan with the features of a confederation. Democratic confederalism understands itself as a coordination model for a democratic nation. It provides a framework, within which inter alia minorities, religious communities, cultural groups, gender-specific groups and other societal groups can organize autonomously. This model may also be called a way of organization for democratic nations and cultures. The democratization process in Kurdistan is not limited to matters of form but, rather, poses a broad societal project aiming at the economic, social, and political sovereignty of all parts of the society. It advances the building of necessary institutions and creates the instruments for democratic self-government and control. It is a continuous and long-term process. Elections are not the only means in this context. Rather, this is a dynamic political process which needs direct intervention by the sovereign, the people. The people are to be directly involved in the decision-finding processes of the society. This project builds on the self-government of the local communities and is organized in the form of open councils, town councils, local parliaments, and larger congresses. The citizens themselves are the agents of this kind of self-government, not state-based authorities. The principle of federal self-government has no restrictions. It can even be continued across borders in order to create multinational democratic structures. Democratic confederalism prefers flat hierarchies so as to further decision finding and decision making at the level of the communities.
* The model outlined above may also be described as autonomous democratic self-government, where the state-related sovereign rights are only limited. Such a model allows a more adequate implementation of basic values like freedom and equality than traditional administrative models. This model need not be restricted to Turkey, but may also be applicable in the other parts of Kurdistan. Simultaneously, this model is suitable for the building of federal administrative structures in all Kurdish settlement areas in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Thus, it is possible to build confederate structures across all parts of Kurdistan without the need to question the existing borders.
* The decline of real-socialism was also a result of how the socialist countries used their power both internally and externally, and in the fact that they misconceived the importance of the gender issue. Women and power seem to be quite contradictory things. In real-socialism, the question of women’s rights was a rather subordinate issue, which was believed to be resolved anyway once the economic and other societal problems would be solved. However, women may also be regarded as an oppressed class and nation or an oppressed gender. As long as we do not discuss freedom and equal treatment of women in a historical and societal context, as long as no adequate theory has been devised, there will not be an adequate practice either. Therefore, women’s liberation must assume a main strategic part in the democratic struggle for freedom in Kurdistan.
* Today, the democratization of politics is one of the most urgent challenges. However, democratic politics need democratic parties. As long as there are no parties and party-affiliated institutions committed to the interests of the society instead of fulfilling state orders, a democratization of politics will be hardly possible. In Turkey, the parties are only propaganda tools of the state enjoying public alimentation. Their transformation into parties committed exclusively to the interests of the society, and the creation of the necessary legal basis in this context, would be an important part of a political reform. The founding of parties bearing the word Kurdistan in their name is still a criminal act. Independent parties are still obstructed in many ways. Kurdistan-related parties or coalitions serve democratization and are not advocates of separatism or the use of violence.
* There is a widespread individual and institutional subservient spirit, which is one of the biggest obstacles in the way of democratization. It can only be overcome by creating an awareness of democracy in all parts of the society. The citizens must be invited to actively commit themselves to democracy. For the Kurds, this means building democratic structures in all parts of Kurdistan and wherever there are Kurdish communities, which advance the active participation in the political life of the community. The minorities living in Kurdistan must be invited to participate as well. The development of grassroots-level democratic structures and a corresponding practical approach must have top priority. Such grassroots structures must be regarded as obligatory even where basic democratic and legal principles are violated as in the Middle East.
* Politics needs independent media. Without them the state structures will not develop any sensitivity for questions of democracy. Nor will it be possible to bring democracy into politics. Freedom of information is not only a right of the individual. It also involves a societal dimension. Independent media have also always a societal mandate. Their communication with the public must be marked by democratic balance.
* Feudal institutions like tribes, sheikdom, aghast, and sectarianism, which are essentially relics of the Middle Ages, are like the institutions of classic nation-states obstacles in the way of democratization. They must be urged appropriately to join the democratic change. These parasitic institutions must be overcome with top priority.
* The right to native language education must be warranted. Even if the authorities do not advance such education, they must not impede civic efforts for the creation of institutions offering Kurdish language and culture education. The health system must be warranted by both state and civil society.
* An ecological model of society is essentially socialist. The establishment of an ecological balance will only be accomplished during the transition phase from an alienated class society based on despotism to a socialist society. It would be an illusion to hope for the conservation of the environment in a capitalist system. These systems largely participate in the ecological devastation. Protection of the environment must be given broad consideration in the process of societal change.
* The solution of the Kurdish question is attempted within the framework of the democratization of the countries exercising hegemonial power over the different parts of Kurdistan. This process is not limited to these countries, though, but rather extends across the entire Middle East. The freedom of Kurdistan is tied to the democratization of the Middle East. A free Kurdistan is only conceivable as a democratic Kurdistan.
* The individual freedom of expression and decision is indefeasible. No country, no state, no society has the right to restrict these freedoms, whatever reasons they may cite. Without the freedom of the individual there will be no freedom for the society, just as freedom for the individual is impossible if the society is not free. A just redistribution of the economic resources presently in the possession of the state is eminently important for the liberation process of the society. Economic supply must not become a tool in the hands of the state for exercising pressure on the people. Economic resources are not the property of the state but of the society.
* An economy close to the people should be based on such redistribution and be benefit-oriented instead of exclusively pursuing the accumulation of surplus value and turnover increase. The local economic structures here do not only damage the society but also the environment. One of the main reasons for the decline of the society lies in the effects of the local finance markets. The artificial production of needs, the more and more adventurous search for new sales markets and the boundless greed for ever growing profits lets the divide between rich and poor steadily grow and enlarges the army of those living below the poverty line or even dying of hunger. An economic policy like this cannot be tolerated anymore. This is therefore the biggest challenge for socialist politics: implementing an alternative economic policy, which is not exclusively oriented by profit but rather by a just distribution of resources and the satisfaction of natural needs.
* Although the Kurds assign the family a high value it is still a place where freedom does not abound. Lack of financial resources, lack of education, lack of health care do not allow for much development. The situation of women and children is disastrous. So-called honor-killings of female family members are a symbol of this disaster. They become the targets of an archaic notion of honor, which reflects the degeneration of the entire society. Male frustration over the existing conditions is directed against the supposedly weakest members of the society: women. The family as a social institution experiences a crisis. Here, too, a solution can only be found in the context of an overall democratization.
The Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) Short outline of the history of origins of the PKK
In April 1973 a group of six people came together in order to form an independent Kurdish political organization. They acted on the assumption that Kurdistan was a classic colony, where the population was forcibly refused their right to self-determination. It was their prime goal to change this. This gathering may also be called the hour of birth of a new Kurdish movement.
Over the years, this group found new followers who helped them spread their conviction in the rural population of Kurdistan. More and more they clashed with Turkish security forces, armed tribesmen of the Kurdish aristocracy and rival political groups, which violently attacked the young movement. On November 27, 1978 the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) was founded in a small village near Diyarbakir. Twenty-two leading members of the movement took part in the inaugural meeting in order to set up more professional structures for the movement. In an urban environment the movement would not have survived, so they focused their activities on the rural Kurdish regions.
The Turkish authorities reacted harshly to the propaganda efforts of the PKK. Detentions and armed clashes followed. Both sides experienced losses. The situation in Turkey, however, was also coming to a point. The first signs of the imminent military coup were already visible in 1979. The PKK responded by withdrawing from Turkey into the mountains or into other countries of the Middle East. Only a small number of activists remained in Turkey. This step helped the PKK to secure their survival. On September 12, 1980 the Turkish military overthrew the civil government and seized power. Many of the PKK who had remained in Turkey were imprisoned by the military junta.
In this situation, the PKK had to determine whether they wanted to become an exile organization or a modern national liberation movement. After a short phase of re-organization a majority of members returned to Kurdistan and took up armed resistance against the fascist junta. The attacks on military facilities in Eruh and Semdili on August 15, 1984 proclaimed the official beginning of the armed resistance. Although there were deficits, the move towards becoming a national liberation movement had been made.
Originally the Turkish authorities - Turgut Ozal had just been elected prime minister – tried to play down the incident. The state propaganda called the guerilla a “handful of bandits”, which is telling about the mindset of those in charge there. A political approach to the conflict was not perceptible. The clashes grew into a war, which demanded numerous victims from both sides.
It was only in the 1990s that the situation became less gridlocked, when the state seemed to become ready for a political solution. There were statements by Turgut Ozal and Suleyman Demirel, then president, indicating that they might recognize the Kurdish identity, raised hopes for an early end of the conflict. The PKK tried to strengthen this process by declaring a ceasefire in 1993.
The sudden death of Turgut Ozal deprived this process of one of its most important protagonists. There were other obstacles, too. Some hardliners among the PKK stuck to the armed struggle; the situation among the leadership of the Turkish state was difficult and marked by conflicting interests; the attitude of the Iraqi Kurdish leaders Talabani and Barzani was also not helpful in deepening the peace process. It was the biggest opportunity for a peaceful solution of the Kurdish question until then, and it was lost.
Subsequently the conflict escalated. Both parties experienced high losses. However, even this escalation did not lift the dead- lock. The years of war between 1994 and 1998 were lost years. In spite of several unilateral ceasefires on the part of the PKK, the Turkish state insisted on a military solution. The ceasefire of 1998 remained without response as well. Rather, it stirred up a military confrontation between Turkey and Syria, which brought both countries to the edge of a war. In 1998 I went to Europe as the chairman of the PKK in order to promote a political solution. The following odyssey is well known. I was abducted from Kenya and brought to Turkey in violation of international law. This abduction was backed by an alliance of secret services and the public expected the conflict to further escalate then. However, the trial on the Turkish prison island of Imrali marked a political U-turn in the conflict and offered new perspectives for a political solution. At the same time this turn caused the PKK to reorient ideologically and politically. I had been working on these points already before my abduction. This was truly an ideological and political cut. What, then, were the real motives?
Main criticism
Doubtlessly, my abduction was a heavy blow for the PKK. It was nonetheless not the reason for the ideological and political cut. The PKK had been conceived as a party with a state-like hierarchical structure similar to other parties. Such a structure, however, causes a dialectic contradiction to the principles of democracy, freedom, and equality, a contradiction in principle concerning all parties whatsoever their philosophy. Although the PKK stood for freedom-oriented views we had not been able to free ourselves from thinking in hierarchical structures.
Another main contradiction lay in the PKK’s quest for institutional political power, which formed and aligned the party correspondingly. Structures aligned along the lines of institutional power, however, are in conflict with societal democratization, which the PKK was declaredly espousing. Activists of any such party tend to orient themselves by superiors rather than by the society, or as the case may be aspire to such positions themselves.
All of the three big ideological tendencies based on emancipative social conceptions have been confronted with this contradiction. When real-socialism and social democracy as well as national liberation movements tried to set up social conceptions beyond capitalism they could not free themselves from the ideological constraints of the capitalist system. Quite early, they became pillars of the capitalist system while only seeking institutional political power instead of putting their focus on the democratization of the society.
Another main contradiction was the value of war in the ideological and political considerations of the PKK. War was understood as the continuation of politics by different means and romanticized as a strategic instrument.
This was a blatant contradiction to our self-perception as a movement struggling for the liberation of the society. According to this, the use of armed force can only be justified for the purpose of necessary self-defense. Anything going beyond that would be in violation of the socially emancipative approach that the PKK felt itself obliged to, since all repressive regimes in history had been based on war or had aligned their institutions according to the logic of warfare. The PKK believed that the armed struggle would be sufficient for winning the rights that the Kurds had been denied. Such a deterministic idea of war is neither socialist nor democratic, although the PKK saw itself as a democratic party. A really socialist party is neither oriented by state –like structures and hierarchies nor does it aspire to institutional political power, of which the basis is the protection of interests and power by war.
The supposed defeat of the PKK that the Turkish authorities believed they had accomplished by my abduction to Turkey was eventually reason enough to critically and openly look into the reasons that had prevented us from making better progress with our liberation movement. The ideological and political cut undergone by the PKK made the seeming defeat a gateway to new horizons.
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY PARTYC- PLAN OF ACTION FOR THE TERMINATION OF CLASHES
DOCUMENT OF POLITICAL STANCE ON TURKEY’S DEMOCRATIZATION AND SOLUTION TO THE KURDISH PROBLEM
Following the July 22 2007 general elections, Turkey entered a new phase. Presently, all political forces approach the problems of the country from their own stance and considering their own priorities. However, centers of power able to assume a role in the solution of the problems, unfortunately adopt an attitude of disregard against the most fundamental and poignant problem of our country.
Even though the almost thirty years of conflict stands as the major source for the exacerbation of all problems of the country, it is still not analyzed beyond a question of terrorism and security. In this context, the problem is more aggravated in every sense. The absolute failure of the efforts to solve the problem with the same mentality and measures for decades is now clearly revealed. Consequently, the society experiences incurable losses in every respect. All the people living in our geography now desire a solution to this problem. Not a single person finds acceptable the loss of lives and the pain suffered by a different family every day. The statements “BLESS THE MOTHERLAND”, “BLESS THE MOTHERLAND BUT UNTIL WHEN?” are expressions of it.
The permanency of the atmosphere of conflict gradually grows feelings of enmity, the rehabilitation and reparation of which is very difficult among the people inhabiting the same geography for over a thousand years and collaborating in many areas of life. In recent months, significant signals of warning which were indications of this tendency appeared in many places. Nevertheless, these were unfortunately either disregarded or were exploited as issues in domestic political agenda by various circles.
We find the taking of steps for the establishment and endurance of an atmosphere of non-conflict as a party that attends to all problems of Turkey and seeks solutions to them. We believe that unless concrete results are obtained on the issue, the attainment of internal peace, tranquility and welfare remains an illusion. It is on this ground that we have been struggling for years for the attainment of our internal peace. We paid a high price for this sake. This is only because we are aware of the fact that this is the only way to endorse and uphold the common values created by a thousand years of common life. We know now by the testimony of our near history that all other efforts and ways only serve to plant and grow seeds of enmity among our people. Hence, we insist and we are stubborn.
We are aware that the reconfiguration of the historical commonality through an equal and free relationship of fraternity would benefit this country and its people. Our aim is to bring in an esteem and respectability to our people and country that would set the pace for the whole region.
Until today, we took our steps conscious of our responsibility in the attainment of internal peace and the reconfiguration of relations. We are determined to fulfill our share of responsibility in this tense and critical period Turkey is witnessing. We will intensify our efforts for the termination of clashes and the gradual establishment of a lasting peace. Until this day, our party has made many attempts for the termination of clashes and the emergence of a suitable atmosphere for the solution of the problem. These efforts received, from time to time, positive feedback and engendered the rising of hopes for solution in society. However, each time these attempts were impeded and rendered futile by structures feeding on conflict and tension. As might be expected, this attitude gave way to a shattering of trust and belief among our people. For this reason, as the Party, we will assume our leading role for the development of a solemn and conclusive process. Past experiences reveal the fact the establishment of ceasefire by a single party is devoid of generating enduring positive consequences. Departing from these experiences, practical efforts will be exerted for the commencement and endurance of a process of mutual ceasefire.
To this end;
1. The Kurdish Question lies at the core of the conflict experienced by our country. The development of an inclusive approach regarding the Kurdish Question during the endeavor for the New Constitution entails prospects for the achievement of a peaceful atmosphere. Regarding the issue, efforts will be devoted to the initiation of conventions and collaborations with all related powers and organizations.
2. Attempts will be brought to the fore to exert influence on all related circles for the attainment of a lasting termination of clashes. The assumption of the role of intermediation is a possibility once suitable conditions arise and upon the positive stance adopted by related powers.
3. Attempts at collaboration with civil society organizations, democratic institutions and organizations for the commencement of a lasting termination of clashes, initiatives will be taken for the formation of an appropriate ground and pressure groups.
4. Relations will be developed with the foreign powers able to assume prominent role for the termination of clashes including the civil society organizations working for peace, EU, USA, Kurdish Federal Government and a diplomatic process will be initiated in this context.
5. In order to carry out all these attempts mentioned above, our party assumes profound responsibility and declares its genuine will to work for the formation of a workshop group comprised of the representatives of political parties, peace assembly, civil society and democratic mass organizations and various figures.
November 8 2007
PARTY OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY 2nd EXTRAORDINARY CONGRESS
DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY PARTY
DOCUMENT OF POLITICAL STANCE ON TURKEY’S DEMOCRATIZATION AND SOLUTION TO THE KURDISH PROBLEM
A- REFORM IN TURKEY’S POLITICAL-ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE AND MODEL OF SOLUTION TO THE KURDISH QUESTION
The Republic proclaimed after a joint struggle waged by the People of Anatolia in 1920’s, has not been able to acquire a democratic quality in spite of the eighty-four years that have passed. The centralist system of nation state, while engendering the ignorance of cultural differences, has given rise to major discrepancies rendering the social and economic problems and demands for freedom and equality of all social segments in Turkey deadlocked.
In essence, the administrative conception that ignores cultural differences –particularly that of Kurdish people and yet that adopts the elimination of cultures through assimilation as official ideology, is devoid of providing solutions to any specific social problem. The current practices that aim at the imposition of uniformity on society through a monolithic understanding of state administration do not respond to social needs. Rather, they stand as the primary cause of prevailing problems and crises. The political and administrative mechanism of the nation state, organized as a rigid, centralist entity, corresponds a fortiori to an oligarchic structure rather than a Democratic Republic. The expression in the Preamble to the 1982 Turkish Constitution that qualifies the Republic as essentially a social, democratic, secular state, governed by the rule of law, has never been effectuated throughout the course of the republic. It is beyond dispute that the discursive non-ethnic (civic) understanding of Turkish nationalism apart, the military, administrative and judicial organization of the state has, in fact, been fundamentally established on an overwhelming conception of Turkish ethnicity.
The process of nation state building, initiated with the Treaty of Westphalia, has been fabricated on the generation of the uniform citizen and a cultural structure based upon such conception of the individual. This system has induced an extermination of the cultures outside the dominant culture; thereby paving the way for an incredible massacre of cultures. Again, during this period, the world has experienced two world wars and thousands of regional and local wars. Eventually, this process of nation state building has ascended to the level of Hitler fascism. In the aftermath of the Second World War, upon experience of the dangerous course of history, several European countries have adapted themselves to the federal administrative structure; hence, the European Union has emerged as the culmination of this orientation. The administrative structure of the United States has also been predicated upon an attempt to thwart this dangerous possibility. Nevertheless, states such as France are still tackling ongoing problems due to their insufficient perception of the issue.
Yet, even in countries such as France, which is presented as the most powerful model of nation state based on ethnicity, the eventual recognition of the impossibility of carrying along with the existing nation state system has led to the abolition of barriers to free self-expression of different languages and cultures, which took effect with accompanying legal changes acting as a bulwark. “Dixion Language Law” has granted the Corsican, Basque, Breton and Alsace languages the right to education, broadcasting and such. Likewise, autonomy in several degrees has been granted to the Sardinian, German, French and Slovene languages in Italy, the Slovene, Croatian, Czech, Hungarian and Sorab languages in Austria, the Spanish language in the USA, the Swedish language in Finland and Turkish in Greece. Contemporary Iraq also signifies one of the disastrous consequences of the centralist nation state system. It is revealed without doubt today that the Saddam regime which was established on the basis of Arab nationalism stands as the major cause of the violent ethnic clashes taking place in Iraqi geography. The persistence of the system of administration based on a centralist conception of the nation rather than the organization differences around a democratic conception of the nation has reduced Iraq to its current state of affairs.
In spite of the discourse in Turkey stating that sovereignty unconditionally belongs to the people and that the will of the nation is superior to the rest, certain mechanisms providing the democratic participation of people in state administration has hitherto not been established and the military tutelage over civilian politics has been regarded as normal.
Compared to contemporary democracies where problems are discussed and solved in localities by the people encountering them, the rigid, centralist, administrative structure of Turkey, which is remote from the localities, manifests a deadlocked image with its slow, cumbersome characteristics.. The central government in Ankara, facing many different cultural, social and economic problems from East to West and from North to South has not only been unable to generate the will to bring about a solution to these problems, but has been structurally exhausted to a significant extent.
On this basis, our Congress sees inevitable the comprehensive change of Turkish political-administrative structure through a fundamental reform. Considering many contemporary debates, world experiences and current state of affairs in the Middle East, it is evident that statehood and statehood based on ethnicity in particular, brings suppression rather than democracy and freedom to people.
In accordance with this argument, the philosophically and conjecturally sightless understanding of politics of demanding a separate state for each and every nation seems capable of triggering mutual slaughter between people. Instead, a model of political and administrative structure that takes as its basis the democratic unity of the people, liberates democracy from the limitations of a single general assembly, enables the participation of people in mechanisms of discussion and decision and promotes a local and immediate solution to all fundamental problems of society asserts itself as an urgent necessity. Our congress depicts the contemporary conceptualization of the model “democratic autonomy” which is predicated upon the gaining of autonomy of all diversities on matters of free self expression and the rendering of voice to the people in all localities protecting the integrity of the country. Democratic autonomy, also meaning democratic self-governance, introduces the essentials of Democratic Republic.
Democratic Autonomy;
-- Envisages a fundamental reform in order to achieve democratization in the political and administrative structure of Turkey,
-- Departs from an understanding that advocates the empowerment of the people in processes of discussion and decision making as a method for problem solving,
-- Defends the principle of democratic participation for incorporating people into processes of decision making and establishes itself upon the system of assemblies in all local units.
-- Rather than a purely “ethnic” and “territorial” conception of autonomy, democratic autonomy defends a regional and local structure through which cultural differences are able to freely express themselves,
-- Observance with the “Flag” and “Official Language” are binding for the whole territory; yet, democratic autonomy also envisages the establishment of democratic self-governance by each region and autonomous unit with their own colors and symbols,
-- Predicating itself upon the self-sufficiency of the society as a whole, it does not seek the solution to the problem solely with reference to a change in the state system.
-- While envisaging a change in the political and administrative structure of Turkey, shedding light onto the demographic structure of Turkey and the conduct of necessary studies herein are imperative.
Also taking into consideration the endeavor on the New Constitution, the need for a comprehensive political and administrative reform asserts itself in order to bring to life “democratic autonomy”, which we define as the most rational model for the solution of different social problems ranging from common issues experienced by all provinces such as İstanbul, Antalya, Adana, Samsun, Edirne and Kars, to unique, local issues within a modern and democratic state structure.
In this administrative model, through the operation of decentralization, a regional assembly which assumes power through elections similar to those of the county councils is established. The regional assembly embraces those neighbor provinces which are in close socio-cultural and economic encounter. This regional assembly assumes responsibility in fields of service such as concerning education, health, culture, social services, agriculture, marine, industry, construction, telecommunication, social security, women, youth and sports. The central government conducts foreign affairs, finance and defense services. Security and judicial services are jointly conducted by the central and regional government. The central supervision of these services is mutually determined by both governments.
Regional assemblies provide the carrying out of services through their reception of local revenues alongside the budget allocated by the central government taking into consideration population indices and levels of development. Underdeveloped and poor regions benefit from positive discrimination.
These assemblies are called “regional assemblies” and the people assuming duty in these assemblies are called “regional representatives”. The assembly elects the assembly chairperson and the executive council members of the assigned field of duty separately. The chairperson and members of the executive council are responsible for the execution of the decisions taken by the assembly.
This structure does not denote federalism or autonomy based on ethnicity; it is rather an administrative consolidation situated between the central government and provinces that takes participatory democracy as its basis. Each of the regions is named after the specific name of the region or of the largest province within the area of responsibility of the regional assembly.
In this model, governors of provinces are responsible for the enforcement of the decisions taken by both the central government and the regional executive council. Provincial town organizations of ministries submit to the same procedure. Other administrative structures such as the Provincial General Assembly, municipalities and elected heads of neighborhoods (Mukhtar) retain their existence.
In essence, regional assemblies to be established in Turkey, the numbers of which are figured around 20-25, constitute democratic political and administrative structures that facilitate the smooth conduct of affairs between the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) and the provinces and that enable increased participation of the people in state administration. The functioning and jurisprudence of this political and administrative structure is expected to take shape as a consequence of the intense academic and political debates to be conducted in the forthcoming period of time.
Our Congress has the conviction that this model signifies a significant improvement in the construction of the Democratic Republic. Thereby, the process of democratization miscarried during the first years of the Republic is to be effectuated. This process denotes at the same time, the implementation of a variety of Local Autonomy cited in Ataturk’s statements to the journalist Ahmet Emin Yalman, in the face of contemporary circumstances.
The implementation of “Democratic Autonomy”, which requires joint elaboration with the establishment of civilian, self organizations of society, is essentially the systematized model of the perception of “less state” “more society”, “less restrictions”, “more freedom”. It is for this reason that, democratic autonomy connotes a more functional, democratic and participatory system through which the society is able to formulate solutions to its own problems, utilizing the intermediation of civilian and independent institutions, the scope of which is by no means limited to comprehensive and central state intervention in all areas of social life. In all areas of social life ranging from economy, environmental problems to health, education, culture and arts and the freedom of women, autonomous units predicating themselves on self-sufficiency are to be established. The expression implies that the society constructs its own system of democratic autonomy by means of its own will. Our congress, while envisaging reform in state structure, has reached a decision that favors the prompt installation of the self-organization systems of society.
Our congress deems essential the redefinition of the concept of “NATION” through the common ties of belonging to the “NATION OF TURKEY” as an indication of the advancement of the democratic nation, in place of the emphasis on ethnic identity, particularly present in the Constitution.
In replacement of a definition of citizenship which depicts every individual as Turkish, the citizenship of Turkish Republic, within the framework of “Turkey as homeland” that recognizes cultural identities and embraces the nation of Turkey based on these cultural identities is acknowledged. Diverse identities and cultures that constitute the nation of Turkey are hence able to acquire a freer atmosphere through this system within which they preserve and improve their differences under constitutional guarantee. As a matter of fact, these principles, espoused in 1920’s, have been included in the 1921 Constitution of the Republic and yet they have been abolished with the adoption of the 1924 Constitution of the Republic. For this reason, the new Constitution, which requires elaboration as a new social contract in accordance with the founding philosophy of the Republic qualifies as Turkey’s headway to twenty first century.
The arrangement in the new Constitution so as to include the clause “the Constitution of the Turkish Republic acquiesces the democratic existence and self expression of all cultures” would entail a steering approach for Turkey’s democratization and the peaceful resolution of the Kurdish Question. Our political objectives, depicted as the abolition of barriers to all languages and cultures –the Kurdish language heading first- and the democratic redefinition of the ethnic based concepts of “citizenship” and “nation” constitute principal criterions in the Constitutional Referendum.
As a matter of fact, though the restrictions on language and culture persisting since 1924 have been particularly designed in order to target the Kurdish population; other diverse cultures in Turkey have also received their share in the process. For this reason, the need for accepting the presence of ethnic and religious diversities constituting the Nation of Turkey as a cultural richness as well as the advancement of specific regulations by the state, which attributes the state a positive performance in their protection and enhancement, arises. Although Turkish is retained as official language, taking into consideration the demographic structure of the regions and in conformity with the clauses of international conventions, constitutional guarantee for the use of other languages in public sphere and as language of education is required. The opportunity for self-organization and creation of civilian institutions of all cultures, including the right to engage in politics in one’s mother tongue should be placed under constitutional guarantee. Furthermore, statements constraining liberty of thought and speech should not exist in the Constitution.
Social inequalities emanate from gender inequality. Any demand for equality and freedom is bound to fall short of its objectives in the absence of gender equality. For this reason, the clear and open statement of the principle of positive discrimination in the Constitution is mandatory in order to provide the equal participation of women in social, cultural, political and economic life and to achieve gender equality in all aspects of life.
Even If They Defend the Federation
Behold, it became as it used to be. The document "Democratic Autonomy Project" that DTP presented to the parliament was labeled as the "treason document" by MHP and BBP.
CHP's attitude is no different. Our nationalist columnists are crying out, what kind of arrogance is this . . . The reaction was so severe that DTP subsequently needed to make a statement saying that they didn't defend federation. They said the Democratic Autonomy Project was not suggesting any federative structure. Okay, if they say so let us accept that it is so. However, I say that--even if they defend federation--what's going to happen?
You, on one hand, will tell DTP "okay do not expect anything from terror and here you are in the parliament, do your politics" and, on the other hand, when they start doing politics, all of you, altogether, will cry out to them:
"This is treason". Oh, yes, I understand.
They can do politics, but only the politics you want. They can talk about peace galore, they can give messages for "good and beauty". They can go after the corruption files, they can find jobs for their constituents, they can even--when they have the chance--allocate benefits. Of course, the municipalities can pick up garbage and repair roads; however, discussions about autonomy, about the state system, about official language, they cannot do. Nor can they do identity politics.
This federation debate really became stale. Firstly, this so-called unitary structure is not something from God. It is not a structure that comes from eternity and goes into infinity. Simply, it is a structure of government. It came at a particular point in history and maybe in fifty years no one will favor this system.
Now, almost half of the world's population is governed by federative systems and they are living in good shape. They neither love their countries less than us, nor are they weaker than us, nor are they more unstable than us, nor are they poorer than us. Secondly, there is no reason to be shocked by this thing. The federative system or state system is not being mentioned for the first time in this country.
Özal, even in the 1990s, wanted the state system to be debated. The choice of the federative system is the backbone of Şerafettin Elçi's party. Even Ataturk, according to some documents, had defended autonomy for the Kurds in the first years of the republic (I hate to point out the truth of an idea by using Ataturk as a reference.
In my opinion, I always think the state's power must limited and I always see the federative system more positively than unitary systems. Several experiences show that federative structures are more feasible in terms of living together in ethnically, religiously, or culturally diverse societies. The unitary system on the one hand, with its powerful centralized structure suffocates the other, who wants to give a reaction. A federative system, on the other hand, with its loose structure, enables diversity and gives the right to live more than the unitary system, by giving them the right to live, the right to exist, and the right of political participation.
For that reason, unlike is claimed, generally it does not cause separatism. Rather, it results in a voluntary unity. This looks like this example: If you put a diverse group of people in one house and you place in their hands a very strict document with rules, and you make them to share a budget among themselves, and [tell them] "you are going to eat together, wear the same wardrobe, and will live together" in that particular house, within a couple of days they will start fighting.
However, if you put the same people onto different floors of a building, allocate that particular budget for their mutual expenditures and, for their mutual work, you make them form an administration. Other than that, you leave them to live with their own rules and regulations. More than likely those people will be good neighbors. Of course, these things that I have mentioned are theoretical.
However, if we try to apply this logic in terms of making a transition from today's Turkey to a federative system, there will be no doubt several unknown factors. Indeed, the project that DTP presented to the parliament would serve such a discussion in order to see these results--of course if it had not been rejected with this kind of objection [that we have seen].
Besides, we would also learn to what extent this kind of approach would be favored among the Kurds. Whether it would satisfy their social demand or whether this idea is a theoretical demand in some Kurdish intellectual's mind but hasn't had a response among Kurdish society.
“Prison sentence of up to 15 years for OBAMA...
… has been asked for by a prosecutor in a case against him”…
… if you read a report like that do not be bewildered. For the article 305 of the new Turkish Penal Code reads:
Acting Against the Fundamental National Interests
ARTICLE 305 - (1) Those persons who directly or indirectly receives material benefit for himself/herself or for others from foreigners or foreign organizations as a result of or in exchange of committing acts that are against fundamental national interests shall be sentenced to jail for between three and ten years, and a judicial fine of up to ten thousand days. The same sentence shall be given to persons who offer and receive benefit.
[ . . . ]
The preamble of the article clarified the cases where the article would be applied:
“… such as the withdrawal of Turkish soldiers from Cyprus or for the settling of a solution that is disadvantageous for Turkey, or such as making the propaganda by the means of press and media, merely to damage Turkey and as contrary to the facts, that Armenians suffered a genocide at the beginning of the First World War…”
However in quick time it was understood that the preamble would cause a scandal hence that part was omitted when the law was published as a book but it was too late. For the part omitted from the book had not been omitted from the text published in the Official Gazette. Non-governmental organisations and then the European Union inquired about it. The government tried to cover it up by saying “Well there must have been a mistake …” however did nothing to amend the law. Article 305 is there like a dynamite waiting to be ignited and nobody knows on whose head it will explode.
Has Obama violated article 305?
Without doubt. Look at what he said:
“A political solution to be reached through negotiations would end the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus and the tragic division of the Island into two.” Source.
“I will recognise the genocide if I get elected” AA - WASHINGTON – Second leading candidate of Democrat Party in the marathon for setting the candidate for US presidential election due in November, black senator Barack Obama promised to recognise the allegations of “Armenian genocide”. Source.
What about receiving benefit or money in return?
Sure, he beat the record.
According to a report in Wall Street Journal last week, Obama raised 127.2 million dollars and spent 366 thousand dollars in the quarter between February and May. Source.
Yes but he is a foreigner, could article 305 be applied to him?
Let’s go back to the famous preamble of the article. The paragraph 2 of the preamble, it was not felt necessary to sweep that part under the carpet, says:
“Perpetrator of the said offence may be a citizen as well as a foreigner”.
In brief:
1. Obama has publicly said both of the statements which had been given as examples in the preamble.
2. He raised and spent a considerable sum of money in his election campaign as part of which he said those things. Thus the crime has been materialised. Relevant sentence would be: prison sentence between 3 and 10 years!
3. Moreover the offence has been committed by the means of press and media. 50% increase: from 4 and half years up to 15 years!
4. Being a foreigner does not make any difference, he should have known that there is no escaping from Turkish justice.
Already Ahmet Davutoglu, chief foreign policy advisor to the Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has come to Washington and warned Barack Obama against supporting a genocide resolution by Congress. Turkey and Armenia have in recent months made important steps toward reconciliation, and Davutoglu has warned that this process would be endangered by a genocide resolution. In other words, "It's not a good time." Of course, it's never a good time to tell unpleasant truths to Turkish nationalists.
Barack Obama, however, has renewed a pledge, previously made to the Armenian-American lobby, to support such a resolution. Clearly Obama will face a difficult choice. On one side will be historical truth as confirmed by millions of documents, eyewitness reports, and photographs, plus Armenian political pressure. On the other side will be semantic nitpicking ("Was it really 'genocide'?" "Did the Ottoman authorities authorize murder, or just removal?"), and massive political, bureaucratic, and diplomatic pressure from pro-Turkish forces.
I have just finished watching a programme broadcast on UK ITV's Tonight programme where undercover reporters including the former UK Princess, Sarah Ferguson exposes the barbaric and disgusting conditions in which children with learning difficulties are held in jail like conditions in state institutions, that seem like concentration camps in Tayyip Erdoğan's Turkey. Turkish authorities tried to take legal action to stop the broadcast.
[ . . . ]
What was uncovered in these state 'concentration like camps' was an absolute disgrace, devoid of any humanity and constitutes gross and massive human rights abuses against vulnerable children.
Undercover reporters uncovered systematic abuse in many different camps in Istanbul and Ankara, including imprisonment and neglect, 24 hour sedation and treatment of kind that you would only find in Nazi concentration camps. See some of the footage leaked to Kanal D here
In a camp called Saray, near Ankara almost 7oo people with learning difficulties live a prison like existence in conditions that beggar belief.
One young man was filmed squirming along the floor following the sun rays that entered the 'wards', the undercover reporters were told that he is never allowed outside.
Others were filmed tied to bed posts and chairs while many simply rocked to and fro like caged animals. When Sarah Ferguson gave any of the children any attention and comfort the children soaked it up like they had never seen such attention in their lives.
A hospital in Turkey's third biggest city, Izmir, was being investigated by a prosecutor for possible medical negligence yesterday after 13 newborn babies died in its care in 24 hours.
The babies - who were all born prematurely - died at Izmir's state-run Tepecik hospital at the weekend, re-igniting concerns about the country's standards of postnatal care and prompting the prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to question whether the deaths had been caused by neglect.
It was Turkey's second such case in as many months. In July, 27 babies - also premature - died over a 15-day period at the Zekai Tahir Burak hospital in Ankara, the Turkish capital. Doctors attributed those deaths to hypertension, heart failure or birth complications, but government-appointed investigators concluded that the risk of infection due to staff shortages could have been to blame.
New born infants need emergency care units for premature births, abortions or for dealing with asphyxia developed during birth. In Turkey the rate of these infant disorders is 5 per cent. They have to be taken care of for about a month or three months in these units. As the number of these emergency care units remains the same, and no patients are turned back from hospitals, problems are rising. To solve the problem sometimes three infants are put into the same emergency care unit, raising the risk of infants catching infections.
[ . . . ]
The situation in university hospitals is worse. All their applications are turned down. They are treated like step children. Even public debts to the university hospitals are paid after long negotiations. Let's say the money is found for purchasing an emergency care unit. But from where will you find additional staff nurses, interns and doctors who will run it? When qualified staff in university hospitals quit their job their open place is immediately cancelled.
[ . . . ]
The prime minister says nobody will be turned away from hospitals. On the other hand, the management of all hospitals are complaining that they are in a dire shortage of medical equipment, beds and staff, while the Minister of Health's position is very clear: "Anybody who opposes our orders will be banished from work or sent to exile in a remote part in the country.
As Turkey once again turns its gaze to its failure to properly care for its babies and children with the latest series of infant deaths in an Ankara hospital, statistics reveal that infant mortality is several times higher in Turkey than in the nations of the EU that it desperately wants to join
Diplomatic relations between Ankara and Arbil, the capital of the northern Iraqi administration, were almost frozen after the foundation of the regional Kurdish government there and Massoud Barzani's election as its president. Recently the relations have seen a period of thaw, and some of the walls between the two parties have been brought down, Barzani explained yesterday after his meeting with Turkey's special envoy to Iraq, Murat Özçelik. Ankara emphasizes the importance of "silent diplomacy" with the Kurdish administration in this regard.
Along with the breaking down of walls has come the building of bridges between Turkey and its northern Iraqi neighbors. Ishik University, newly opened by the Turkish Fezalar Educational Co. in Arbil, is one of those bridges. Fezalar has been active in education in the region for 14 years and has 10 schools in Arbil, Sulaimaniya and Kirkuk. The university is now accepting student registration, and classes will begin in mid-November.
After the Soviet Union collapsed, the super powers began to fight over Central Asia’s oil and gas wealth, as well as the geopolitics of the region. The U.S. did not want Iran to have control over the Central Asian republics. The U.S. knew that it could not easily have access to the region; therefore, it used the movement of a Turkish Islamic imam, Fethullah Gülen as a perfect proxy to gain control quickly and effectively because Turkey shared the same history, culture and religion with Central Asians. However, this odd but fortuitous relationship made it easy for Gülen later to have entry into America. The U.S. used Gulen’s movement by comparing what it perceived to be a bigger threat to a lesser threat. Rather than standing by for a radical Islamic group to infiltrate Central Asia in the vacuum left by the Soviets, the U.S. choose to support Gulen’s missionaries who were armed with Turkish Sufism. Similarly, the U.S. reasoned that allowing the CIA to support Osama Bin Laden to defeat the Soviet troops in Afghanistan in1979, would ensure the defeat of the Russians.
[ . . . ]
These strange bedfellows of U.S. foreign policy and the Turkish-brand of “moderate Islam” lead Gülen into a cozy relationship with the U.S. In 1999, Gülen escaped to the U.S. citing health issues as an excuse; however, in 2000, he was charged by the Turkish government with forming a terrorist organization to dismantle the secular state in order to replace it with a pro-Islamic government. Today Gulen’s Islamic party is in charge of the Turkish government, and they seek out those who want to act against Gülen, one by one putting them in jail and naming them “the Erkenekon gang.” For example, the Turkish government has charged the owner of the Cumuhuriyet newspaper, some high military officials, and some other party leaders with various crimes, but this strategy is just another way Gülen is taking revenge and wanting the military to be under the control of the civilians or the police because most of the police chiefs are his followers.
The United States’ law allows Gülen Muslim missionaries to operate easily in America. Gülen does not have to challenge the existing political order; he knows how to achieve his goals without violating U.S. law. Actually, it is much easier to gain followers and then position them in key institutions in the U.S. than it was in Turkey. Because the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of religion, Gülen uses that existing system for his Islamic aims. In Turkey Gülen initially had problems and lacked the freedom to gain power because the military did not allow his religious activities to be used as a tool to take over the government. Gülen has always taken advantage of situations and used them as opportunities to spread his global Islamic missionaries’ activities under the platforms of Interfaith Dialogues, opening schools around the world, holding conferences, and starting more house mosques, as in the U.S.
"In terms of Internet censorship, Turkey is for sure now one of the significant countries," says Clothilde Lecoz, head of the Internet freedom desk at the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders. "We are very, very concerned about it."
The European Union, which Turkey hopes to join, has previously been critical of Turkey's record on freedom of expression, particularly in regard to its prosecution of writers and journalists under Article 301, a vague law that punishes those who insult the state and its institutions.
Orhan Pamuk, the Turkish author and Nobel laureate who was tried under Article 301, used his opening speech at the Frankfurt Book Fair this month to criticize Turkey's YouTube ban.
"YouTube, like many other domestic and international websites, has been blocked for residents of Turkey for political reasons," Mr. Pamuk said. "Those in whom the power of the state resides may take satisfaction from all these repressive measures, but we writers, publishers, artists feel differently, as do all other creators of Turkish culture and indeed everyone who takes an interest in it: Oppression of this order does not reflect our ideas on the proper promotion of Turkish culture."
Commenting on the latest developments, Reporters Without Borders said: "All this arbitrary blocking of websites has demonstrated that this law is the main source for the deterioration in online free expression. Furthermore, ISPs are forced to do the blocking of access to sites that break this law. This makes them accomplices to censorship."
The press freedom organisation added: "We call for Law 5651 to be amended as quickly as possible. Rather than block an entire website, only the content regarded as 'sensitive' should be the challenged before the courts."
Turkey was ranked 102nd out of 173 countries in the 2008 press freedom index which Reporters Without Borders released on 22 October.
The 1st Criminal Court of First Instance of Diyarbakır has lifted the ban on blogger.com and thus freed the blogs, the internet journals.
According to ntvmsnbc, the decision to lift the ban on the blogs affiliated with blogger.com and blogspot.com went into effect yesterday (October 27).
Today, the internet users witnessed the lifting up of the ban gradually.
Google’s blogger.com and blogspot.com, which provide free internet journal keeping, had become inaccessible in Turkey since October 24. The internet users, the freedom of expression defenders and the telecommunications organizations had been protesting the decision that banned the blogs.
Blogger.com is one of the most visited ten internet sites. It has millions of blog users.
"I advise patience. But I am also concerned about when this patience will end. The citizen, whose life is threatened, will defend himself if he has the chance," Erdogan said on Monday.
Cynthia McKinney today expressed her appreciation for the support of Professor Noam Chomsky, noted linguist tenured at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In private emails with campaign supporters this week, the respected social critic noted that he had voted Green in 2004, and would be voting for the party ticket next Tuesday, as well.
"I find it very gratifying that our campaign has garnered the support and vote of such an eminent thinker and noted critic of our nation's foreign policy," said Ms. McKinney, Green Party nominee for President of the United States. "I share Professor Chomsky's analysis that our vote is best invested in building an institution which will survive the close of the polls next Tuesday."
"Millions of Americans who favor the Green Party's positions on the wars, health care, global warming, and other important issues plan to vote for Barack Obama, who doesn't share their views. It's not enough just to defeat John McCain and the GOP agenda," said Green vice presidential candidate Rosa Clemente.
"Democrats have retreated over and over and voted for Bush-Cheney policies -- war funding, the unconstitutional US Patriotic Act, telecomm immunity, corporate handouts and taxbreaks, the death penalty, record incarceration rates, and a $700 billion Wall Street bailout that doesn't help working Americans. The only way to reverse the dangerous direction of US politics is to build a real opposition party. Voting for Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente will strengthen a party that's dedicated to ecological, antiwar, and truly democratic values and doesn't take money and orders from corporations," Ms. Clemente added.
1. Obama publicly and repeatedly promises to escalate the US military intervention in Afghanistan, increasing the number of US troops, expanding their operations and engaging in systematic cross-border attacks. In other words, Obama is a greater warmonger than Bush.
2. Obama publicly has declared that his regime will extend the ‘war against terrorism’ by systematic, large-scale ground and air attacks on Pakistan, thus escalating the war to include villages, towns and cities deemed sympathetic to the Afghan resistance.
3. Obama opposes the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq in favor of redeployment; the relocation of US troops from combat zones to training and logistical positions, contingent on the military capability of the Iraqi Army to defeat the resistance. Obama opposes a clearly defined deadline to withdraw US forces from Iraq because US troops in Iraq are essential to pursuing his overall policies in the Middle East, which include military confrontations with Iran, Syria and Southern Lebanon.
4. Obama has declared his unconditional support for the position of the pro-Israel Lobby and the colonial expansionist and bellicose policies of the Jewish state. He has promised to back Israeli military attacks whatever the cost to the US. His abject servility to Israel was evident in his speech at the annual AIPAC conference in Washington 2008. Top advisers who have long and notorious links to the top echelons of the principle Zionist propaganda mills and the Presidents of the Leading Jewish American Organizations wrote the speech and formulate his Middle East policy.
5. Obama has promised to attack Iran if it continues to process uranium for its nuclear programs. Twice, just weeks before the elections, Obama’s running mate Joseph Biden spelled out a series of ‘points of conflict’ (including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia and North Korea) emphasizing that Obama ‘would respond forcefully’. Obama’s senior Middle East advisers include leading Zionists like Dennis Ross, closely linked to the ‘Bipartisan Policy Center’, which published a report serving as a blueprint for war with Iran. Obama’s proposed offer to negotiate with Iran is little more than a pretext for issuing an ultimatum to Iran to surrender its sovereignty or face massive military assault.
6. Obama unconditionally supports Israel’s expulsion of Palestinians and the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the leading cause of Middle East hostility, warfare and the discredit of US policy in the region. With three dozen Israel-Firsters among his leading campaign organizers, top policy advisers, speech writers and among the likely candidates for cabinet positions, there is virtually no hope of ‘influencing from within’ or ‘applying popular pressure’ to change Obama’s slavish submission to the Zionist Power Configuration. By supporting Obama, the “progressive intellectuals” are, in effect, allies of his Zionist mentors.
7. On the domestic front, Obama’s key economic advisers have impeccable Wall Street credentials. He gave unquestioning and immediate endorsement to Treasury Secretary Paulson’s $700 billion dollar taxpayer bailout of the richest investment banks in the US. Obama has failed to challenge Paulson or the banks over the use of Federal funds for buyouts and acquisitions instead of loans and credit to producers and homeowners. Obama’s backing of Paulson and the Wall Street bailout is matched by his meager proposals to suspend mortgage foreclosures for a three-month period, pending re-negotiations of interest payments. Obama proposes to escalate transfers of government funds to mismanaged financial institutions and bankrupt capitalist corporations, in efforts to save failed capitalism rather than pursue any new large-scale, long-term public investment programs which will generate well-paid employment for workers.
8. Obama’s economic team has openly declared their embrace and practice of ‘free market’ ideology and opposition to any effort to engage in large-scale injections of government funds in publicly-owned productive activity and social services in the face of wide-spread private sector failure, corruption and collapse.
9. Obama embraces failed private sector health plans, run and controlled by corporate insurance companies, conservative medical and hospital associations and Big Pharma. He publicly rejects a universal national health program modeled after the successful Federal Medicare program in favor of inefficient, state-subsidized private for profit plans that are costly and beyond the means of over one third of US families.
10. Obama is and continues to be an advocate for Big Agro and its highly subsidized and profitable ethanol program, which has increased food prices for millions in the US and for hundreds of millions in the world.
11. Obama advocates continuing the criminal embargo on Cuba, hostile confrontation with Venezuela’s populist President Chavez and other Latin American reformers and the duplicitous policy of promoting protectionism at home and free market access to Latin America. His key policy advicers on Latin America propose cosmetic changes in style and diplomacy but unrelenting support for re-asserting US hegemony.
12. Obama has not proposed, nor do his free market advisers and billionaire financial backers envision, any comprehensive plan or strategy to get us out of the deepening recession. On the contrary, the course of piecemeal measures presented by Obama are internally inconsistent: Fiscal austerity is incompatible with job creation; bailing out Wall Street drains funds from productive investment; and pursuing new wars undermine domestic recovery.
The Green Party Presidential ticket of Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente brings something special and unprecedented to U.S. politics. Not only are they the first all women-of-color ticket for President and Vice President with ballot access in most states.[1] These women take racial justice seriously, and have made strides to put gender at the center of a progressive agenda. For these two, it's more than skin deep.
[ . . . ]
While it's easy to recognize that corporate media has excluded McKinney and Clemente from their election coverage, progressive and liberal media have also contributed to the blackout on these women. The Daily Show's election website, Indecision2008.com, prominently tracks Nader and minor (male) conservative candidates, such as Ron Paul and libertarian Bob Barr – but not McKinney. Perhaps not surprising from a male-dominated show that dismisses Palin as a VPILF?
[ . . . ]
A few feminist, and gender-conscious progressive sites have offered the women a nod. But while the National Organization for Women has acknowledged Palin's candidacy as historic,[3] it has failed to mention the Green Party's groundbreaking women-of-color ticket – at all.
Most progressives voting for Obama do so out of their partial blindness regarding the crimes of the American state; they see all the crimes commissioned and executed by the Republicans, but if a Democrat vote-getting team ransacked their very neighborhoods, doing drive-by's at high noon, with 'Vote Democrat' signs on their SUVs, they would most likely not see it. If a Democratic candidate is not too pretty, their answer is simple: it is a vote against Republicans. When pushed for something more positive, more substantial, lacking anything to offer, they argue that Obama-Biden ticket is less scary than McCain-Palin, and so we must make sure they get elected.
The other point they make is that a vote for Obama is a slap in the face of racism. To think that one is fighting racism while voting for a candidate that upholds every racist element of the structures of imperialism is to venture into political oblivion.
Such arguments can only come from people who do nothing whatsoever to change the really existing political life of the U.S. in between presidential elections. But, of course, every four years they must express some political recommendation of sorts, and out of desperate frustration, due to seeing the political field as only what the system presents (i.e., due to the fact that they do not act as subjective agencies), they can only decide which system-provided choice is less harmful. This is the gist of their dilemma.
So long as the left in the U.S. does not create its own independent institutions, so long as there is no institutional alternative that can channel people's grievances, and so long as there is no political party representing the working classes along a socialist outlook, the current balance of forces will continue to work increasingly against the working people and those interested in a more just society, and no matter how learned we might be, we will end up supporting the 'lesser' of the two evil parties dominating the people; in other words, supporting the imperial system.
[ . . . ]
In lieu of a disclaimer, I must say that I respect anybody who votes for Nader or McKinney as a way of registering their opposition to the 'two party' monopoly. I have argued in previous articles that, IF you think by voting you can bring change, then know that the only change worth voting for is the kind presented in the platforms of the independent candidates. Also, voting for independent candidates as a way of registering your support for people who are actually addressing our problems is a way of getting a real tally of how many people actually oppose the establishment candidates and support real change.
[ . . . ]
I come from the so-called Third World, in which boycotting elections is a political tool the masses, and the parties that stand with them, employ with good effect. Imran Khan's party (Insaf) in Pakistan, for example, boycotted the last elections there, and it was an organized message sent to the establishment that the rulers would not get a stamp of approval from the real opposition. This, far from re-creating 'apathy' or 'conceding' the elections, actually makes governments nervous. In Iran, for another example, you are required to take your birth certificate with you when you vote, so the authorities can stamp it, so they can see who has not participated, so they can do onto you what they will, should you have to deal with the authorities at some point.
So, boycott is actually a very powerful political tool, because it gives political voice to those who refuse to participate. Simply sitting at home and not announcing that you are boycotting is a different matter. Boycott is a political move, with a long-term vision in mind.
. . . [T]he book suggests radical changes to the political and administrative structure of Turkey. Among the proposals is dividing Turkey into 20 or 25 regions, with each region being governed by a system chosen by its residents. This proposal also envisages granting broader authority to local administrations, including giving the right to locals to elect their governors. The book also calls for "a smaller state and a greater society," which foresees reducing the scope of the state's authority and broadening the rights and freedoms granted to citizens. Other proposals include drafting a new constitution, ensuring the free use of the Kurdish language in public as well as recognizing the Kurdish identity under the new constitution and changing the notion of a "Turkish nation" into a "nation of Turkey."
Autonomy or Federation?
Looking at one's idea and praising it or discrediting it is a very prevalent attitude here.
For instance, think about Graham Fuller's speech, which he made at a think-tank institution and was published in yesterday's newspapers. In a speech where there are very remarkable points and, I think they are correct, is discredited or has a high probability of gaining enmity just because Graham Fuller is a former CIA administrator.
Of course, the same situation is the case when the one who expresses the idea is Öcalan himself. DTP brought a project to the parliament that earlier was offered by Öcalan, which is called the "democratic autonomy project" and the project foresees Turkey divided into federations. As you know, DTP had prepared this project in October 2007 in Diyarbakır at its Democratic Society Congress and in the same year, in November, at DTP's second regular congress it was included as part of the party's constitution under the name "Political Policy Document".
Now DTP has passed out this idea as a book written in Kurdish, Turkish, and English to the parliamentarians, the ministers, and the ambassadors, in order to get the idea discussed widely. In fact, in a normal democratic regime, there is nothing more normal as a political activity than what DTP is doing. What is DTP doing? DTP is bringing a project which is informed based on the sensitivity of its grassroots. This project was declared in a decision of their congress; it was not done covertly and was brought to the parliament. This project offers to divide Turkey into 20 to 25 autonomous regions.
"With the condition of respecting Turkey's unitary structure, opening up regional autonomous structures, having the official language and flag subject throughout Turkey, enabling each region to have different symbols and colors--along with the official Turkish language and flag throughout Turkey" is called for.
Each region chooses its own governmental structure, more authority is given to regional administrations, and governors are elected by the people. The Kurdish language and identity must also be kept under constitutional guarantee in this project; "Big cities like Trabzon, Diyarbakır, Van, Erzurum must be considered as regional capitals and have friendly relations with the government of Northern Iraq; regional resources must be transferred to regional governments" are such suggestions that have been enumerated. DTP aims to have political activity in order to solve this structural change not through violence but through parliament and law.
Now I ask you: if a political party is not going to do such activities then what is it going to do? For us, when we say that the Kurdish question must be solved through a political solution, if we don't mean this kind of project then what do we mean? But now, even now, look at this: the media has reported this news as "A disturbing offer from DTP to the parliament" or "They brought Apo's suggestion to the parliament" giving such accusational headlines. Firstly, yes, this project may cause disturbance in the parliament but let's not forget that political projects do not always have to be easy.
On the contrary, if we want to solve the Kurdish question by political means we have abandond such tongue twisters as "Unity, Integrity, Brotherhood" kind of repeated rhetoric and we have to really consider about this radical political solution; we have to take them seriously. Even if this comes with the cost of disturbing the parliament and thinking very hard or discomforting us.
Secondly, yes, this project was mentioned by Öcalan previously; however, an idea cannot be considered good or bad because of the people who suggest it. The wrong and the crime is the one that a legal party which has an organizational relationship with an illegal "terrorist" organization. This is wrong. Other than this, it is quite normal that DTP can defend the political views that PKK does. It might champion such projects, which is the case here.
The most prevalent confusion is caused by the state's accusation of PKK as "separatist terrorist". However, here in the two terms joined together, one is conceptual (separatism) and the other is criminal (terrorism). For years we used these two damned words. For years we forgot to consider such two damned words in the framework of freedom of speech.
Moreover, the project that was suggested to parliament about federation is not claiming to remove the unitary system of Turkey and, also, this project's patent isn't Öcalan's. In Turkey, the intellectuals who were concerned about the Kurdish question have such federative models since the 1960s, such as in the Revolutionary Eastern Cultural Hearths and the Turkish Labor Party's (TİP) time, and they brought several discussions about this kind of system. As a result, I said that we must take very seriously the suggestion brought by DTP to the parliament today and we definitely have to enhance it and make it mature. It's worth debating.
Of course as long as we do not mean empty words or the rejection of all kinds of ethnic identity and the acceptance of violent assimilation policies, or thoughts of removing ethnic identity through economic advancement. If we don't mean these kinds of things, we have have to think about it.
There are some people who have benefits from an unsolved Kurdish question. Turkey is buying very serious numbers of arms from abroad. Unmanned aircraft. Do you know how much AWACs cost?
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
Veteran Pentagon consultant Michael Bayer, chairman of the Defense Business Board, told his fellow panelists that the new president's inner circle should "set aside time in transition to identify the planning, gravitas and interagency process necessary to respond to a likely first-270-day crisis."
The United Kingdom has MI-5, which roots out spies and terrorists in the British Isles.
Canada has CSIS -- the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Now Congress is asking: Should the U.S. have its own domestic intelligence agency?
On Monday, at the request of Congress, the RAND Corporation outlined the pros and cons of establishing a domestic intelligence agency. It also discussed different ways to organize a new entity, either as part of an existing department or as a new agency.
On October 1, the Pentagon, for the first time ever, dedicated an Army force specifically to NorthCom, which is in charge of securing not some foreign region but the United States of America.
The unit it assigned is the 3rd Infantry, First Brigade Combat Team, which has spent three of the last five years in Iraq. It was one of the first units to get to Baghdad, and it was active in retaking and patrolling Fallujah. One of its specialties is counterinsurgency.
This marks a change for NorthCom, which was established on October 1, 2002. Its website still says it “has few permanently assigned forces,” and that “the command is assigned forces whenever necessary to execute missions, as ordered by the President and the Secretary of Defense.”
Leahy “asked for a briefing from his staff” on this development and “wants to monitor the situation,” an aide to Leahy said.
Leahy was instrumental in getting Congress to repeal the “Insurrection Act Rider” in the 2006 defense appropriations bill. That rider had given the President sweeping power to use military troops in ways contrary to the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act. The rider authorized the President to have troops patrol our streets in response to disasters, epidemics, and any “condition” he might cite.
