LIFT THE BAN ON PKK!

"Let's not miss the peace opportunity this time."
~ Murat Karayılan.

Something from the email inbox:

APPEAL

Lift the ban on the PKK – Justice and Freedom for the Kurds

To the UK government and the European Union

For the past 30 years, the Kurdish region of South-Eastern Turkey has been wracked by conflict between the Turkish state and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). A peaceful settlement could be achieved – but efforts to secure peace have been jeopardised by the UK and European Union’s ban on the PKK as a ‘terrorist’ organization. As a result, the only organization that enjoys the mass support of Kurdish people has effectively been excluded from the negotiating table.

The Kurdish people seek peace. The Turkish government says it wants peace. The European Union wants a stable and democratic Turkey to become a member of the EU. But no armed conflict as deeply rooted as the one between Turkey and the Kurds has ever been resolved without first reaching a political settlement that is formally binding and verifiable. Of necessity this demands a willingness by all parties – in this instance, representatives of the Turkish state and of the PKK - to negotiate on equal terms. The ban on the PKK has placed a block on such dialogue even starting.

We believe that PKK has clearly demonstrated over many years that it commands the loyalties of the vast proportion of the Kurdish people living in Turkey and the Kurdish diaspora. We also believe that the organisation has successfully given voice to the Kurdish people’s demands and has articulated these demands in responsible and measured ways. In so doing, it has shown that it is fully entitled to be regarded as the representative body of the Kurdish people. Indeed, no peace agreement is likely to be reached without the PKK’s active participation. Lifting the ban is a thus a pre-requisite to peace.

We are also concerned that the continuing conflict between Turkey and its Kurdish minority remains a serious obstacle to lasting peace and democratic reform in Turkey and inhibits progress on its accession to the European Union

Despite being held in prison by Turkey for more than ten years, Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK’s founder and leader, still commands the loyalty and support of millions of Kurdish people. During his decade of detention and indeed long before Ocalan has issued many constructive proposals for peace and dialogue and the PKK has adopted numerous unilateral ceasefires.

We believe that both Ocalan and the PKK have an important role to play in the pursuit of a lasting peace between Turkey and the Kurds. We the undersigned are convinced that by delisting the PKK the deeply longed for peace will be brought that much closer.

Supported by Kurdish Federation UK, Kurdish People’s Council, Peace in Kurdistan Campaign

First signatories to PKK appeal Mark Thomas, journalist/comedian; Tim Gopsill, Editor, National Union of Journalists; Margaret Owen, Widows for Peace through Democracy (WPD); Gareth Peirce, human rights lawyer; Hugo Charlton, barrister; Roger Tompkins, international human rights lawyer, retired; Michael Gunter, Professor of Political Science, Tennessee Technological University, US; Dr Felix Padel, writer, UK; Caroline Austin, photographer, NUJ; Tony Gard, Movement for Justice; Hywel Williams MP; Martin Caton MP; Bill Etherington MP; Ronnie Campbell MP ; Nick Harvey MP; David Drew MP; Les Levidow, CAMPACC; Saleh Mamon, CAMPACC; Ann Alexander, Scotland Against Criminalising Communities; Richard Haley, Scotland Against Criminalising Communities; Norman Horne, retired; Prof. Dr. Raimund Rütten, Universität Frankfurt am Main; Sarah Parker, translator, Socialist Resistance, London; Dave Hewitt, Nottingham; Carmencita Karagdag, Coordinator, Peace for Life (WWW.peaceforlife.org); Patrick Mac Manus, Foreningen Oprør / Rebellion (Denmark): www.opror.net/blog/; Navn Karl Aage Angri Jacobsen, Red-Green Alliance (Denmark)/Retired; Raymond Swing Frederiksberg, Denmark; Janni Milsted , Pædagog, Denmark; Ove John Nielsen, Denmark; Ion Meyer, Kopenhagen University, Denmark; Ulrik Danneskiold-Samsøe, Denmark; Gitte Thomsen, Denmark; Jette Englund, Denville, New Jersey USA; Ricardo Gustavo Espeja, historian, Argentina; Xusrew Zeki , IT Consultant

3,275 have signed the appeal by 1 June 2009 – PLEASE SUPPORT AND ADD YOUR NAME!

Deadline for signatures 15 July 2009!

Kurdish Federation UK fedbir@googlemail.com
Peace in Kurdistan Campaign estella24@tiscali.co.uk
c/o 44 Ainger Road, London NW3 3AT

You do not have to be a citizen of the UK to sign this petition so please copy and paste it into your email, add your signature and return it to fedbir@googlemail.com or estella24@tiscali.co.uk

If you're in the UK, you may send it by post to Peace in Kurdistan Campaign, c/o 44 Ainger Road, London NW3 3AT.

Patrons of the campaign include: Lord Avebury, John Austin MP, Lord Rea, Lord Dholakia, Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, John Bowis MEP, Jean Lambert MEP, Alyn Smith MEP, Hywel Williams MP, Elfyn Llwyd MP, Julie Christie, Noam Chomsky, Edward Albee, Mark Thomas.

Serkeftin!

RECENT STATEMENT FROM DTP'S EUROPEAN REPRESENTATIVE

From MEP Vittorio AGNOLETTO and MEP Feleknas UCA

TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
+ their assistants and advisers
+ Cabinet of the President


Dear Members, Dear Colleagues,

On Monday we sent you an important information about the very disturbing news coming from Turkey concerning the arrest of 300 members and activists of the legal, legitimate and parliamentary pro-Kurdish DTP party ("Democratic Society Party / DTP"), among them the three DTP vice-presidents! We received today a significant letter from the DTP representative for Europe, Mr Fayik Yagizay, that we think important to send to all EP Members, for a necessary political reaction: you can find it here below and -also- as attachment. How can a candidate country violate in such a manner the fundamental rights of its own population? [Emphasis Mizgîn]

We keep you informed about the situation, thank you for your attention,

MEP Vittorio AGNOLETTO and MEP Feleknas UCA

**********

TO THE ATTENTION OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

22nd of April, 2009

[Note: All emphasis original]

The police operation against our party DTP which started in 13 provinces on 14th of April 2009 has been escalated to a very serious stage. More than 300 members, executives and activists including three vice presidents of our party have been detained. 153 of them were sent to the court and put in to the prison and the others are still under detention. The operation is still going on and the police are arresting new people almost every hour! None of these people are members of an illegal organization, but they are all members, activists and executives of our legal, legitimate and parliamentary party.

Everybody agrees that we got a clear victory at last local elections on 29 of March 2009. Despite many violations, oppressions and tricks, we almost doubled the number of our municipalities (from 56 to 98); we were the first party in 10 provinces in the east and south-east of Turkey. We could win many more provinces if there were democratic and fair elections.

After these results, many people in Turkey started to discuss the Kurdish Question and they wanted the government to launch a dialogue with the DTP for a peaceful solution. When Mr. Obama had a visit to Turkey, he had a meeting with the leader of our party Mr. Ahmet Turk, and he said that there should be a peaceful solution to the Kurdish question in Turkey.

On the other hand, we heard very dangerous statements from Prime minister, vice prime minister, The Chief of the General Staff and some other state officials stating how dangerous the success of our party is for the national security of the Turkish State.

After these statements, we can easily say that this operation is a political operation. The government and the army got very disappointed and nervous because of our success. While Mr. Erdogan expecting to win some of our provinces, we won many more and we almost doubled the number of our municipalities. So we can say that the main reason of this operation is our success, and it is a kind of revenge!

We fear that this oppression on our party will damage the belief of democratic struggle among our people and aggravate more the unstable situation in Turkey. We have committed ourselves to the democratic struggle for peace and freedom in our country! But we need the support of progressive international public opinion.

As a democratic party in Turkey we ask you to show your solidarity with our party and have a declaration against this dangerous operation. We expect that the European Parliament to react, as it had in the case of Mrs. Leyla Zana, 1995 Sakharov Prize for the Freedom of Thought.

Best regards,

Fayik YAGIZAY, DTP representative for Europe

**********

Related: More on Ahmet Türk in London from Hevallo.

ACTION IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

More from Europe:

From MEP Vittorio AGNOLETTO and MEP Feleknas UCA

TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
+ their assistants and advisers
+ info Cabinet of the President

***************************

Dear Members and Colleagues,

We just need some minutes of your time to inform you about the seriousness of the political situation in Turkey (as far as the Kurdish question is concerned) and about facts recently registered in Turkey, where a totally unacceptable repression has been lunched by the security forces and the so-called Turkish justice system ...


1) ... against the pro-Kurdish DTP party ("Democratic Society Party"). As you know, the DTP is a fully recognised, legitimate and legal party with an important parliamentary group in the Turkish Grand National Assembly; after an important victory of the DTP candidates in the recent local / regional election, the Ankara's authorities launched a violent repression against Kurdish and DTP representatives; please note that until now, more than 300 DTP members, executives and activists, including the three DTP's Vice-presidents are detained or involved in police operations (which are still going on)!

Only the DTP leader, Mr Ahmet Turk, a politician very well-known and very appreciated here in the European Parliament and abroad, is not -for the moment- under arrest. This political move by the Turkish police follows the impressive results of the DTP in the local elections on 29 March 2009, in which the party almost doubled the number of municipalities it won (from 56 to 98). Immediately after these results, a number of statements were made by representatives of the Turkish government and the security forces, for example regarding the success of the DTP! Against this background, the police action can only be seen as politically motivated. We therefore call on the Turkish authorities to respect the will of the people, expressed in the recent local elections, and to guarantee citizens their rights, especially freedom of activity for political parties in Turkey, in this instance the DTP, of other regional organisations, such as the Union of South-East municipalities, and of the media. Please find attached the formal DTP-Ankara statement of the 14th of April, plus a DTP-Brussels note / information on the most recent situation.

2) ... against also (again and again) Mrs Leyla ZANA, European Parliament's 1995 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. Let us underline that Leyla Zana has been sentenced in December 2008 to ten years of prison for speeches she gave (even) in the EU European Parliament and the UK House of Lords! This is an unacceptable violation of her fundamentals rights and political freedom, inspired and orchestrated by the Turkish government: please note, for example, that she's facing more than 35 investigations for simple declarations or speeches she made, she doesn't even know how many trials she has to face! On March 31st, 2009, took place -in Diyarbakir- the last session of one of those trials. Mrs Leyla Zana is officially invited to address the European Parliament's Conference of the Groups' Presidents on the 30th of April, 2009, in Brussels; she will have the opportunity to inform our Parliament about her situation.Please find attached an (incomplete) "list of trials" she has to face (in one of those, the Turkish Prosecutor, not satisfied for a condemnation to 10 years of prison, is now asking for 50 years of prison...). Please also find the speech she made during the trail on the 31st of March; an informal report of a relevant member of the UK Bar Human Rights Committee is also attached.


We invite you and your groups to show your solidarity with these people and organisations, such as Mrs Leyla Zana and the DTP, which are fully involved in the promotion of a political solution to the Kurdish issue in Turkey. We'll keep you informed on the situation, as far as on possible initiatives.


Thank you for your attention,

MEP Vittorio AGNOLETTO and MEP Feleknas UCA

Leyla Zana's statement:

10 April 2008
Diyarbakır


TO: DİYARBAKIR CRIMINAL COURT

Respectable Judges,

I would first like to point out that I consider it a disgrace for the democracy of Turkey that I am being tried because of my thoughts. The fact that expression of thought is being considered within the scope of the fight against terrorism underscores yet another topical and burning issue.

It is fact that to be able to express one’s thoughts is a guarantee for all other freedoms. Being deprived of the freedom of thought is synonymous with being deprived of the most basic human freedoms. In generally accepted terms, freedom of thought is borne out of the combination of three main elements: Freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom to disseminate one’s thoughts... The lack of one of these makes it impossible to talk about freedom of thought in any country. The said deficiency causes pluralism to be disregarded also. On the other hand, universal law has gone through an evolution whereby it has moved on from the idea of “the state comes first” to “man comes first”.

Whenever there is talk of the freedom of thought and its exercise, they always remind you that even in developed countries freedom of thought is not infinite and unrestricted. According to research done on this issue, “In almost all countries other than Turkey, the restriction brought on the expression of thought is based not on ‘the security of the state’ but on ‘social peace’ and the ‘security of the people’. Therefore, the claim that there are similar legal arrangements in other countries has no purpose other than distorting the issue.”

Respectable Chief Judge,

Kurdish people are one of the oldest indigenous settled peoples of the Middle East. Kurds living within the borders of Turkey-Iran-Iraq and Syria have been struggling for survival for the past 200 years. Kurds with a population of nearly 40 million, who have been subjected to many massacres during this time frame, have been deprived of all of their national and democratic rights. Despite the fact that some historians have observed that their population is larger than that, an objective census specifically for Kurds can not be carried out. Throughout one hundred year extending from Sheikh Mahmud Berzenci to Sheikh Said, from Seyid Riza to Melle Mustafa Barzani, from Mahabad uprising to the PKK, the Kurdish people have fought for their “status”.


Although Kurds, with a population of around 20 million within the borders of Turkey, who have remained ‘Turkish’ based on their legal description have tried all legal means in different periods, the democratic channels have never opened up at the desired level. The fact that Kurds’ democratic rights were not placed under constitutional safeguards when the Turkish Republic was founded and that they were not granted the right to express themselves in the legal domain, brought with it ‘resistance against oppression’.

The policy of “Divide-Fragment and Rule” and “Deny-Refuse and Destroy” brought about counter violence. The PKK emerged as a rebellion to the injustice entailing this dramatic pressure and destruction. The anti-democratic implementations developed with the justification that “throughout history Kurds rebelled 28 times, and PKK is the 29th rebellion and this rebellion will also be suppressed” were turned into a rigid official state policy. Changing times and various governments unfortunately could not change this policy. While those who were streamlined into the system became members of parliament, ministers, generals, high level bureaucrats, businessmen with money, property and wealth; those who denied assimilation and insisted on their national identity were victimised and considered as non-existent. They were pushed about, humiliated, and silenced by being confronted with an unchanging oppression.


While the shock of denial in the 1924 constitution was still not overcome, the injuries the democracy of Turkey suffered with regular military coups that took place every decade was felt most deeply among the Kurds. The inhuman treatment and severe human rights violations they suffered at the Diyarbakır Prison in particular became a milestone in the recent history of the Kurds. Probably because what they experienced was worse than fire, people placed their very bodies in fire.

Many things were tried: Kurdistan was turned into a place of exile, Kurds were turned into the “other”, state of emergency and martial law were imposed in the area for over 20 years, Kurdish was banned, the yellow-red-green colour combination was considered an offence, extra judicial killings were committed, villages were evacuated, village guard system was put in place. Even during civil disobedience actions entailing democratic demands, many of our people lost their lives for a life of freedom. While the perpetrators of these losses arising from uncontrolled use of force were not punished, Kurds were once again made targets through counter-guerrilla actions based on organisations of gangs and confessions. The feudal structure was strengthened by the support of state policy. Yet another method used for suppressing the demands of the people was to keep tribalism alive. Other important dimensions of this multifaceted problem include forced relocation from villages to urban areas, differences in regional development and inadequate provision of health and education services.

This wave of violence of course wasted many human, ecological and economic resources of the country. These implementations dating back to the beginning of the republic did not just result in numerical losses. Hearts that turned into places of devastation after fire, lives that were broken and lives without a trace slipped away from our hands.

As a result there is not a single Kurd that has not been offended in Turkey. Almost all started life with anxiety and prohibitions imposed on them. Even when they were still a baby, their name suffered prohibitions. During their childhood their language was banned and when they became young men and women their identity and their stance in life were placed under prohibitions. They were forced to think in a single language, express themselves through a single language and think from a single angle of perception. Lullabies their mothers sang to them, their fathers’ cultural characteristics and preferences were denigrated, their preferences ridiculed and they were pushed outside the society. This feeling of anxiety often forced them to speak their mother tongue secretly behind closed doors. They were moreover ridiculed for speaking the official state language with an accent. They were the brunt of jibes and ridicules. ‘Kurdishness’ which was revived due to political, sociological and psychological reasons, gradually turned into will power. The difficulties of being Kurdish in the public domain politicised each and every Kurdish youth ever more. Kurds who did not initially have this political awareness started questioning the reason for their suffering as time went on. From ‘individuals who were ashamed’ of their characteristics originating from their birth, a social awareness and demands that came along with that awareness were born. The burning fire that started off from a small ember started covering every place Kurds lived in without exception. Every prohibition, excluding behaviour or insult brought the mountains a little closer. In time, every Kurdish family started finding a piece of it in the mountains. Thus it became apparent that being “Kurdish” was nothing to be embarrassed about.

Respectable Judges,

Today, the reason for my being in this court has been described as praising crime and criminals and undertaking propaganda for an illegal organisation. I do not think we need to further analyse the legal aspect of this problem, which is in essence a constitutional problem. No democratic country can carry the burden of the 12th of September constitution developed by army generals and one which, let alone being the answer to the requisites of our age, exacerbates existing issues.

If the issue in hand is ‘crime’ and ‘praising criminals’, what is ‘crime’ and who is the ‘criminal’? I would like to state that I do not regard defending a people’s demands for respect, equality and freedom as a crime. My premise in this is not victimisation! In fact I have never adopted the policy of victimisation as a method for seeking rights. I have lived through experience showing that material force, power, and the might that comes with that power will never stand against the will of the people. The definitions of ‘crime’ and ‘criminal’ for those who approach the world on the basis of democracy, human rights and the will of the people are relative concepts. In fact the concepts of crime and criminal are delicate concepts on which universal agreement has not been reached throughout history. We all know that depending on periods, incidents and historical realities, the concepts of ‘crime’ and ‘criminal’ have undergone a process of update. The real crime is to meticulously distract attention from issues that need to be discussed in the democratic public opinion.

Reflecting reality and explaining it in a way different from what it really is, does not solve problems. It is not possible to explain and understand without talking. Then, we must open up ways and means of being able to discuss the issue. How much longer can one hide the truth or ignore it in an age when technology is advancing at a dizzying pace? The traditional ‘statist’ approach has gone bankrupt in the face of a world that has become much smaller. Social reality makes itself felt and compels one to accept it. It is amply clear that those who are regarded as ‘criminal’ in one part of society are regarded as a value in another part of that society.

The world becomes ever more divided and complex day by day. People fear uncertainty. Producing solutions for this division requires that faster decisions are taken against uncertainty. There is a growing need for contributions that underscore respect for differences.


Distinguished Judges,

In this context, developing societies need leaders that develop them. Leadership is a role. People need to be convinced about the leadership, creativity and problem solving power of the person who takes on that role. The leader must first convince people about the necessity of the cause that is being defended. It is difficult to strike a balance between yesterday, today and tomorrow. The leader is the one who builds bridges between the ‘today’ that we want to leave behind and the ‘tomorrow’ that we dream about. He also convinces us that we will be able to cross that bridge and encourages us to do so. That is why their leadership is approved by people.


In this framework I think it is a historic duty for me to express a reality one cannot avoid underlining. During the Newroz celebrations held last year, I said in front of millions that Kurds have three leaders and we are grateful to all of these three leaders. My intention here is neither to make propaganda for an organisation nor to praise it. In fact, I do not think the personalities in question need any praise anyway. I believe that my speech should only be perceived as an observation of a historical situation.


In the indictment, the prosecutor excluded Mr Barzani and Talabani from his evaluation due to their political position. I would like to remind the prosecutor that only yesterday Mr Talabani and Mr Barzani were blamed with the same accusations that Mr Öcalan is subject to today.

Although each of these has a different sphere of influence, all three leaders have an important place in the feelings and thoughts of the Kurdish people. None is an alternative to the other. And because they have demonstrated the skill to turn differences into unity, our people mention them with gratitude. Gratitude, in its simplest sense is the “expression of indebtedness, of a heartfelt debt, of pleasure for a ‘good deed’ that has been done”. In this framework, ‘good deed’ is the ability to prevent peoples from cutting each other’s throat. It is a voluntary reflection of the will to live together. This meeting on the axis of peace and freedom can be described as the greatest “good deed” done throughout history for the sake of Kurds.

The initiators of this effort that has reawakened a nation—a nation that even history itself had forgotten-- will certainly be mentioned with gratitude. Not to say that a great majority is impressed by the ideas of these leaders who, while seeking a future without frontiers, have embraced the culture of social peace and democracy and taken it to their people would be a travesty of truth. In this framework, it is inevitable and natural for Kurds to accept these three leaders as persons of value. What I wanted to voice in behalf of our people was giving unto those who deserved what they duly deserved.

“Leaders come on the stage of history with a call for social needs. The goal of the leader is victory. The struggle against evil, the inadequate, and the mediocre also aims for victory. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that great leaders emerge and show the way for solving problems in war or peace or during times of a drive for change, in other words during turning points in history.”


It should be known that if, despite decades of conflict, the Turkish and Kurdish people have not confronted each other, Mr Öcalan’s role in that is great. This role is also the guarantee for an honourable, just and lasting peace. Preparing society for the historical journey called change is possible when the right people become leaders at the right time. There are many people with great goals and who spend a great deal of effort to achieve them. But those who act in the name of their people and who accomplish their mission alongside their people are regarded as great leaders. It is because of these reasons that our people have repeatedly stated both in writing and verbally that he is accepted as the Kurdish People’s Leader. In the eyes of our people just as speaking Kurdish, saying Kurdistan and saying Mr Öcalan is not a crime, believing in this cause is not a crime either. Taking ownership of one’s leader is a human, conscientious, moral and political responsibility. In this context, the message distilled from the cries of millions of our citizens taking to the streets with the slogan, “PKK is the people, the people are here” should be understood correctly. Describing the Kurdish people’s demands for peace, freedom and equality as “terrorism” offends the Kurdish people.


One should not forget that at a place where there is war, one day there will definitely be peace. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’ reading the peace declaration with Mr Yasser Arafat whom he called a ‘terrorist’ for years, the courage of the South African President Mr De Klerk and Mr Mandela in ending the three hundred year white supremacy are still clear in our memories and remembered with respect. Peace, which will be a new life is not divisive, destructive and dislocative; on the contrary, it is unifying, bringing together and inclusive; because peace is the very act of building itself.

Respectable Judges,

As I conclude my presentation on this portion of the trial, I would also like to take this opportunity to announce an important decision of mine. From now on, whatever the ‘charge’ may be, I am thinking of not using my right to defend myself in trials. Since I started my struggle, irrespective of time and place, at squares or at trials I have always defended the same ideas. I was sometimes the witness and sometimes the defendant. I also stayed in prison for many years. The direction of my thoughts did not change either when I was a ‘prisoner’ or when I was ‘free’. You may not approve of my ideas; in fact we can defend conflicting and different ideas as well. But now I believe in the senselessness of repeating ourselves. I wish for a process where an evolution of thought has been completed in which our people will not be suspects, defendants or prisoners because of their thoughts.

Leyla Zana

Trial observer statement:

REPORT ON OBSERVATION OF TRIAL OF LEYLA ZANA

MARCH 31ST, DIYBAKIR

Margaret Owen. Member Bar Human Rights Committee.


Leyla Zana appeared in the Diyabakir Court on March 31st to answer charges that she is a terrorist, praises crime and undertakes propaganda for an illegal organisation (the PKK). She is indicted under the Anti-Terror Law and under certain articles of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC), as evidenced by her speeches made abroad between 2007 and 2008.

Over a hundred foreign observers many from Germany and Italy, and others from Sweden, the UK and representing the European Parliament and the Commission) had come to attend the trial, which was due to open at 10.am. However, since only 2 days earlier the DTP had won a resounding victory against the AKP and other parties in the local elections in the South-East, and tensions were running high, which were thought might severely influence the judge and prosecutor in the case, the defence lawyers sought and obtained an adjournment to June 2nd. The judge accepted Leyla’s lawyers’ plea that they needed further time to formulate the defence. Nevertheless there was still a short hearing.

As always (to a UK observer) the physical geography of the court room both shocks and surprises, since it seems to reflect the Kafkaesque features of the Turkish judicial system. High up behind the platform sit 4 people in it seemed, identical judges’ robes; but the one sitting close to the central figure, the chief judge, is in fact the Prosecutor. On the other side are the two other judges who appear to take little part in any discussions on the bench, show little interest in what is said, while they twiddle with the mouse on the laptop. (Could they be playing solitaire?) Lower down in the court-room, to one side, sit the defence lawyers, Meral Bestos, Muharrum Erbey and another. Visually there is clear inequality between prosecution and defence, and the proximity of prosecutor to judge raises questions of course about the independence of the judiciary and the fairness of any trial given this scenario.

Although we had been told that an adjournment had been granted, there was still a short hearing in which Leyla Zana read out, in turkish, (or rather repeated) the speech she had made as her defence to her prosecution in April, 2008 for the speech she had made at the Newroz of 2007, defending her defence. She said “Respectable Judges, I would like first to point out that I consider it a disgrace for the democracy of Turkey that I am being tried because of my thoughts. The fact that expression of thought is being considered within the scope of the fight against terrorism underscores yet another topical and burning issue. It is a fact that to be able to express one’s thought is a guarantee of all other freedoms”. She spoke about fundamental rights of the Kurds to freedom of expression, assembly and of their language rights. Concluding she said “I would also like to take this opportunity to announce an important decision of mine. From now on, whatever the “charge” may be, I am thinking of not using my right to defend myself in trials. ….I believe in the senselessness of repeating ourselves. I wish for a process where an evolution of thought has been completed in which our people will not be suspects , defendant or prisoners because of their thoughts”.

After the adjournment the observers were invite to a lunch with her lawyers, and later on the day the UK delegation, and others had a further meeting with Muharrem Erbey. There we learnt more detail about the danger for Leyla Zana of the indictments under a combination of laws, under both the TPC and the Anti-Terror Law. Under the TPC, Article 304 para.2 and Article 220 para. 6 in particular. The latter spells out that even if a defendant is not an active member of an illegal (terrorist) organisation, and does no work on its behalf, if he or she “ acts like a member” the charge of terrorism can be sustained. TPC Article 222 para. 4 provides for the Prosecutor to appeal when he considers the court has given an inadequate and too lenient a sentence. Whilst the charges arising from the speeches made between 2007 and 2008 outside the jurisdiction but recorded and circulated in the country ( including one made at a meeting held at a House of Lords Committee room last summer, 2008), will be prosecuted on June 2nd, Leyla Zana also faces an appeal, by the Prosecutor, at the Court of Cassation in Ankara, against the sentence of 10 years imprisonment for other speeches and writings on the grounds that the sentence is “not enough” for a conviction on both providing propaganda for an illegal organisation and for being a member of a terrorist group. He is asking for a further 23 years. However, Leyla’s lawyers emphasized that the hearing on June 2nd. is the crucial one, rather than the Ankara appeal, for which no date is expected to be given for another 4 or 5 months. They earnestly request the presence of foreign lawyers to observe this hearing, and hope that the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) can be persuaded to send observers to report on the fairness of this coming trial.

The "List of Trials" is available upon request.

PROSPECTS FOR A FUTURE SOLUTION TO THE KURDISH QUESTION

"It is unfortunate that those profiting from the war in Turkey are being allowed to continue escalating it."
~ Adem Uzun.

Adem Uzun opines about the prospects for a peaceful solution to the Kurdish Question in Turkey, stolen from the hevals at KurdishInfo (Censored site: http://www.kurdish-info.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=12395):

Adem Uzun: PROSPECTS FOR A DEMOCRATIC, PEACEFUL SOLUTION TO KURDISH QUESTION


We are now at a stage where the forces of democracy and international public opinion are pressing Turkey for a permanent solution to the Kurdish problem. As the facts are well known, for decades past, the Kurds and the Kurdish movement had been subjected to ever-intensifying practices of oppression, torture, military operations both inland and abroad, with use of tanks and heavy bombings. However, despite all of these assaults, the Kurdish movement could not be eliminated.

At this stage, a political change of direction has become inevitable for Turkey. Nevertheless, Turkey is still determined to continue with its liquidation policy. It is for this reason that instead of making constitutional reforms to acknowledge the Kurdish identity and rights, it is sufficing with some hollow, half hearted, fake steps in order to start a propaganda, claiming to have solved the Kurdish question.

In the continuance of this process, Turkey will claim “to have solved the Kurdish question, to have done everything that needed to be done, that there is nothing else to be done, and the rest is the problem of terrorism”. With this, and before the eyes of the domestic and international public opinion, there is an intention to complete the preparation for a massacre of the Kurdish movement. There are numerous examples in this direction that justify our concerns. For instance, in recent days public opinion has been dominated by an ongoing investigation called Ergenekon; in fact this is the “state within state” or as it is popularly known in Turkey, the “Deep State”. The investigation targeted a privileged section of the society, which has profited from all kinds of influence and which has been part of the existing regime for decades. However, this process resembles the reconstruction of the ‘deep state’ against the Kurds, because, instead of the Ergenekon investigation and trial turning into an Investigation of Truth Commission, in an exactly the opposite process, crimes committed in Kurdistan are not being investigated at all. For this reason, we are anxious that this investigation and debate are turned into a big deception. Consequently, only a short while ago, Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, confirmed how justified our concerns were when he addressed our people in Kurdistan by stating “Love it, or leave it!”

On the other hand, the popular official Turkish view still admits of no such thing as Kurds. If some progress has been made from the old Kart-Kurt to the present day where TRT, the state TV channel, is broadcasting in Kurdish, of course it is the result of the 30 years long struggle the Kurdish people fought. However, the Turkish state is using this situation to try to detach the Kurdish people from their struggle, to weaken their willpower and to suppress them. Other than this, and despite the Ottawa Treaty, Kurdish lands are being saturated with thousands of banned anti-personnel mines, while like the historic Hasankeyf, dozens of settlements are planned to be drowned by dams like Ilisu.

Non-stop air and ground bombardment of civilian areas of settlement are aiming to create military buffer zones against the Kurdish movement. Thus, a plan to develop a comprehensive military attack is afoot! Again, the Turkish Armed Forces are in preparation for a comprehensive cross-border war. In other words, it intends to shed more blood in Kurdistan. The intention is to adopt what is being practised in Palestine and to re-enact it in Kurdistan. To achieve this, the classic divide and rule, divide and suppress approach, is being tried to be employed. For this, relationships were established with Southern Kurdistan in order to step up these efforts to use Kurd against Kurd to ensure that one neutralises the other. Relations with Iraq and Iran should be set within this similar framework. The relationship with Syria is within the same framework. Within the same line, there is the fact of a strategic treaty and purchase of new armaments with Israel. Diplomatic efforts with the forces of Western capital are also within the same context.

This is all intended to make the world accept Turkey’s actions under the policy of “War against Terror”. Turkey’s government and army have tried this method before. Upon the call from the Kurdish People’s Leader, Mr Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK has accepted the call for a ceasefire and in 1998, declared it unilaterally. Following this, Mr Ocalan advanced the step even further in order to prevent the war from worsening as a result of the international conspiracy when he was taken hostage. And he called for the PKK to remove its military presence from Turkey. Despite having lost more than 300 guerrilla fighters in around 3-5 months, and the Turkish army not ceasing military operations, the PKK complied with this call and withdrew its forces. This meant a few years there as a long period of quiet. However, instead of the Turkish state seizing the opportunity to move towards a permanent peace, it fell into the misapprehension of “having won the war, having defeated the PKK!” So no steps were taken towards peace and a solution. Quite the contrary in the post 9/11 period, taking courage from “the war against terror” and the “you are either with me, or against me” doctrine, Turkey escalated the war yet again. Thus, the dissolution was deepened further. At present, despite stating that they wasted the opportunity, they are none the wiser in repeating the same mistake. This has only one explanation. It means that the Turkish government and army agree on elimination mentality and have found support from abroad.

However, someone has to tell Turkey that it has not won any war, indeed that it cannot win this war, and that Kurds are not a gullible or ignorant lot; on the contrary, Kurds have placed themselves amongst the honourable peoples through succeeding in re-creating themselves. The Turkish administration should understand well that it could no longer rule Kurds in the old fashion. They have to consider seriously the democratic solution and peace. A denied Kurd and Kurdistan means an ongoing problem, rebellion and external interference. It means the entire Turkish state and people’s material and moral resources are being exhausted and rolling from one crisis to another. It means loss of esteem and strength in Europe, the Middle East and the world!

It is unfortunate that those profiting from the war in Turkey are being allowed to continue escalating it. There is no limit and boundary for these actions. As much as 80% of incidents that are taking place in Kurdistan do not get reported in the press. There is bombardment in Southern Kurdistan (Northern Iraq) every day. Dust and smoke raised by US and Turkish planes reach the sky, where it joins with that raised by Iranian cannon fire. All civilian Kurdish people in the region are forced to live in fear and panic. What we have here is a grand-scale brutality and intra-state terrorism. Secret meetings to liquidate the Kurdish freedom movement are continuously being held. This approach will not only fail to solve the problem, but it will also shed more blood. Unfortunately, the EU countries do not act on this matter.

The EU Progress report on Turkey was published 2 months ago. The report criticises Turkey on some matters, but fails to address the conflict in depth. In other words, Turkey’s failure at democratisation, the army’s hegemony in politics, its disregard for human rights and freedoms are not considered from the perspective of the inability to solve the Kurdish question, which is essentially the most basic reason for the these failings. Also the recently published WEU report addressed the question in a similar logic, which is essentially concerned with listing the methods how to liquidate the Kurds. More and similar reports could well be quoted. What we essentially would like to point out is that the EU’s approach is prejudiced, more so, it regards the matter within the framework of the demands of the Turkish state. Let me explain: the EU reports portray the Kurds as bad, and uses all the Turkish Government’s sources as their data. Due to both the EU and Turkey not having any project, these reports are full of contradictions. As a result, the EU reports justify the state violence. So much so, that they justify aerial bombardments and land attacks on the Southern Kurdistan, i.e. Northern Iraq. The EU report also consents to extra-judicial executions of Kurds, because it does not base any of the accusations against Kurds, such as “List of Terror” on any concrete evidence. The EU report also shows that European states are being taken hostage by US and Turkish policies. The EU reports tend to impose [conditions] upon Kurds, even ignoring their democratic rights by telling Kurds what kind of leaders they should choose for themselves.

However, a more objective approach will not only open the way to a democratic and peaceful solution to the Kurdish question, but also pave the way to stability in the region. We think it is time to see that the Kurds, who are divided into four countries in the Middle East, are the key to democracy. But, as a result of approaching to the truths from wrong angles due to economic, military, diplomatic and political interests bring about greater instability, more clashes and wider breaches of human rights. Unfortunately, the outgoing EU commission’s practices bring about exactly that situation. Let us hope that the incoming EU commission due to take over in June will not repeat the same mistakes.

Esteemed Guests,

We are here today to acknowledge that this cannot go on as it is and a solution is to be found. A lot of debates are being held, a lot of reports are being published. We believe a permanent solution is possible. Starting from the obvious fact that a solution to the problem will have a direct impact on the peace and security in the region and the world, I will try to portray the Kurdish point of view. It will be observed that if the approach is the correct one, the Kurdish question is the key of democracy not only for Turkey, but also for the entire region. The opposite is to gain permanence to instability. In this context, whilst we have historic opportunities to solve the question, we also have the grave risks of new massacres and wars in failure. It is therefore beneficial to look into perspectives of Kurdish Solution in this context.

Three Alternatives for Middle East to choose

Due to the correlation and direct influence upon each other, if we were to look into the Middle East first; it is obvious that in the era of transition to democratic civilisation, the peoples of the Middle East have three main alternatives to choose from.

The first one is the continuation of the “established regime”, i.e. preserving the Status Quo. Thanks to the system of the established balance of the 20th century, this is the regime that has survived so far. But, both the hegemonic power of the system from above and the awakening of the peoples from below makes it impossible to maintain the Status Quo forever. The status quo, which tries to turn dissolution into a way of existence, when forced, applies a bit of make up on its face, and/or tries to extend its life expectancy through conspiracies, is in the process of deepening isolation.

The second alternative is the mixed democratic regime with limited application, with greater emphasis towards practical aspects. The era makes interdependence more and more prominent. The third stage of globalisation expedites this process. Also, the intra-national period leads the way to intra-corporatism. Nation state more and more becomes a corporate state. National capital is being replaced by intra-corporate capital. On the other hand, local cultures are getting more and more animated. Domesticity becoming the rising value. In brief, this alternative can be described as globalisation and domestication gaining prominence under the given influence of these elements. Whilst this is the worldwide ongoing process, seemingly it is gaining probability, more so for the countries of the Middle East. The inevitability to supersede the regimes of the old status quo renders this choice current and popular.

Our third alternative is the peoples’ democratic, ecological society based on freedom of the sexes, attaching great importance to morality and is not focused around the state. If the peoples and various free communities learn to live by developing the internal democracies, securing the social freedoms of the sexes, and meeting the ecological needs of the society, will enable us to get closer and closer to such a society and democracy.

If communal society and ethnic social arrangements, which are closer to equality, and which the peoples of the Middle East have lived through for a long time are amalgamated with the means of science and technology of the modern era, a more developed, democratic, ecological society, based on freedom of the sexes will be epitomised as the most noble value.

Three Paths for Turkey

Under the light of these alternatives, if we look at the reality of Turkey, we are faced with three paths and three tendencies. In the process of reform and transformation based on the Kurdish question, these three paths and three tendencies will try to remain permanent through the struggle between the relations and contradictions of the parties. The logical, moral and political education, organisation and action aspects of the struggle itself will determine which path and which tendency will remain permanent and dominant.

The first path and tendency is the pro-status quo, inward-looking, divisive and violence inducing nationalist paradigms and practices that had been exercised in the recent past. This tendency is charged with a racist nationalism on the Turkish side and by definition it is very hard-line statist old fashioned conservative without distinguishing between left and right. Armed with “a state of permanent paranoid perception, as a state, a nation, even a society they are under the impression that the last bastion of Turkishness is about to fall, the honour and true faith is at stake, and their schizophrenia is beyond salvaging. It does not neglect the requirements of Islam either, believing that this state of mind will sort out the situation anyhow. As opposed to a true conviction, a showpiece of Kemalism, is the widespread stance both within the state structure and the wider society. This tendency’s reflection upon the Kurdish politics is the form of rejectionism, “out of sight, out of mind” attitude, keeping Kurds excluded from the society and when rebelled, to suppress them with extreme prejudice.

The second tendency and path has emerged from the first one by means of an alienation process. It may also be called the weak liberal bourgeois path. The real emergence of it coincides with the globalisation boom of post-1980’s The ANAP experience, lead by Turgut Ozal was the first version of it. It aims at joining the supranational tendency for globalisation. By definition it is not anti-oligarchic. It is far from being fully open to democracy. Rather than being truly democratic, it satisfies itself by exploiting democracy as a means to its own interests. Its clash with the previous tendency is on the basis of which one would manage to be more dominant. AKP is seemingly on the path of becoming the second version of it.

There is a strong possibility for its mask to fall especially regarding its approach to the Kurdish Question. It cannot possibly fight for long by hitting beneath the belt. Consequently, the AKP has no peaceful project regarding the policy on the Kurds. Although enthusiastic about harmonising with the West, it is not strong enough to determine a policy, let alone exercising it. Its entire hope depends on external forces having their turns to attack the PKK. Progressively it is becoming obvious that they wish to achieve certain goals by being semi-covert and not showing their true colours.

The third path and tendency is focused on civil democratic society and its base is the peoples’ search for equality and freedom under conjoint democracies. By smashing the racist chauvinistic code of nationality, this can be the common denominator of all cultures. Instead of the race based nationhood, it relies upon the country based notion of nationhood. The learning of, and the use of all languages, their unbound use without any restraint is a modern and widespread practice across the entire world. The reform of the state is based upon liberating the state from the ideological role and to turn it into a technical means of service. The existence of cultures that are protected by international agreements, their free expression and continuing survival, the right to be free from being based from any ethnic entity, and not to press for any religious and sectarian segregation are the elements that need reforming.

Reforms that are not based on “Uniformed and Impoverishing Homogenous Equality” as opposed to “Equality in Difference, Wealth in Difference”, are being guaranteed by constitutional protections. It takes comprehensive precautions against mentalities and applications whereby women are treated as property. It adopts the mentality that a truly free society can only be possible by means of ecological. It also embraces so many but so much important elements. The materialisation of this is closely related to the solution of the Kurdish question. The reflection of this tendency to the Kurdish question will be the foundations of e peaceful and democratic solution.

Kurdish Phenomenon and the Kurdish Question

As I related above, in order to materialise each alternative in the realities of Turkey and the Middle East, a realistic approach to the Kurdish phenomenon, which plays a fundamental role to materialise those alternatives, has become imperative even more so then ever before. The truth that has been acknowledged by everybody is that we have entered into an era that Kurds can no longer be ruled in the old way. For this reason, there is a great unease in the region. None of the established regimes are confident any more. Nobody is sure as to what the near future will bring. Every single day will bring about elements that will affect the disintegration in the Kurdish phenomenon. As to how the solution will emerge, in which direction, will be determined by the qualities and the tempo of the forces intervening to the praxis. As to whether the process will reach a solution on the basis of the clash of two nationalisms, or whether it will reach a democratic compromise has entered into the agenda as the most burning two questions.

For the first time ever, The internal relations of Kurds and their relationships with the neighbouring ethnicities and states has become an issue that concerns the regional strategies. Kurdish-Arabic, Kurdish-Turkish, Kurdish- Farsi relationships have entered into an era that keeps so many minds busy.

Under the given conditions two possible developments may be the subject of a democratic solution. The first mode of solution is closely related to democratisation process hand in hand with Turkey. To ensure this, as we have briefly dealt with, a state reform is essential. There is a necessity to avoid putting visible or covert barriers in the path of democratisation process of the Kurds and the practice of turning laws into obstacles must be abandoned. Constitutional amendments must be made. Turkish and Kurdish peoples meeting on a common democratic platform necessitates some arrangements. The parties of the problems must be taken into account. Here, the position of Mr Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdish people gains great importance. Compromise and dialogue must be developed with Mr. Ocalan. Also; to end the clashes and achieve lasting peace a mutual ceasefire must be maintained.

The second path to a democratic solution is for the Kurds to establish their own democracies. If the first path is blocked, the path to enter is to establish the rules and bodies of democracy on their own. The latest local and general elections clearly showed that despite Kurds elected their own candidates, undemocratic laws and obstacles prevent such elections and their results from being enforced. In the future if the prohibiting practices continue, the self-imposed democratic applications of the Kurds will be more expedient.

Other than these, the remaining avenues are denial and suppression on the one hand and rebellion against such policies and war. The history is full of lessons on the subject. Whilst the cries for democratization and democratic solutions are continually rising, they are yet to take their deserved places on the political agenda. Not so surprisingly, however, many European, countries, even some African, Asian and American countries too, have intensely applied the democratic model upon the problems regarding cultures and peoples. This is the path that the world has taken. The time has come and almost too late for those countries concerned with the Kurdish Question, perhaps Turkey first and foremost, to toe the line.

THE FOOLISHNESS OF DISARMAMENT

"The CIA continued to submit intelligence from the Iranian group about alleged Iranian nuclear weapons-related work to the IAEA over the next five years, without identifying the source."
~ Gareth Porter, Asia Times.

Another interesting item from last week, which you can listen to at PRI's The World is that the EU removed the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK or PMOI) from its "terror" List. This follows news from December 2008 that Baghdad wants to expel the MEK from its territory:

Iraqi officials say they intend to expel members of an Iranian exile group living in a camp north of Baghdad that is protected by the U.S. military. The expulsion, which the Shiite-led government has long sought, is expected to become feasible once the U.N. mandate that regulates the presence of U.S. troops -- and which gave the Iranian opposition group protected status -- expires at the end of the year.

Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie on Saturday traveled to the camp with several other government officials to deliver the message to members of the Mujaheddin-e Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group that was closely aligned with deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein but has been under U.S. military protection since shortly after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The government informed the group that it would soon assume responsibility for security at Camp Ashraf and that residents would be repatriated unless they find a third country willing to take them. The U.S. military currently protects Camp Ashraf, which is 40 miles north of Baghdad.

"Staying in Iraq is not an option for them," the government said in a statement issued Sunday. The Iranian government has long called for the group's expulsion.

[ . . . ]

The statement also said the group is barred from participating in political activities and ordered it to cease media campaigns.

Al-Maliki reiterated the message on New Year's Day:

During his speech on New Year's Day to celebrate the official transfer of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone to Iraqi control, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared Jan. 1 the "day of sovereignty" and congratulated his compatriots for having waited so long. He also warned that an Iranian resistance group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), would no longer be able to have a base on Iraqi territory.

[ . . . ]

. . . when the U.S. military formally transferred control of Camp Ashraf back to the Iraqi government on Jan. 1, the MEK's fate suddenly became an issue. The group is a source of contention for Iran and the U.S., Iraq's two biggest allies, who are increasingly vying for influence as Baghdad's post–Saddam Hussein Shi'ite government asserts its independence. All three countries label the MEK a terrorist organization. Iran wants the group handed over for prosecution. But the U.S. has pledged to ensure the group's rights under international law.

The MEK was sporadically active until 2003, including helping Saddam crush the 1991 Kurdish serhildan, when the US disarmed the group in Iraq and took over their protection. According to the radio broadcast report at The World, the MEK has renounced violence and it sounds as though MEK is willing to disband as long as its members are not sent back to Iran. Of course, if no one will give the MEK some kind of sanctuary, it may return to its arms.

That begs the question: What's the point of disarming and renouncing violence if you aren't taken off The List? The MEK have enjoyed the favor of the American neoconservatives for some time, including Daniel Pipes, former Colorado congresscritter Tom Tancredo, the Prince of Darkness himself, Richard Perle, and Larry Franklin, who was convicted by a US court for passing classified information to the Israelis. The MEK has also been a source of intel about Iran's nuclear capabilities, but there are suspicions that the intel the MEK was pushing came from MOSSAD, from Asia Times:

The George W Bush administration has long pushed the "laptop documents" - 1,000 pages of technical documents supposedly from a stolen Iranian laptop - as hard evidence of Iranian intentions to build a nuclear weapon. Now charges based on those documents pose the only remaining obstacles to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declaring that Iran has resolved all unanswered questions about its nuclear program.

But those documents have also been regarded with great suspicion by US and foreign analysts. German officials identified the source of the laptop documents in November 2004 as the Mujahideen e-Khalq (MEK), which along with its political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI), is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organization.

There are some indications, moreover, that the MEK obtained the documents not from an Iranian source but from Israel's Mossad.

So, you disarm, you renounce violence, you start doing the dirty work of the real terrorists, and you're still on The List? Maybe you even pull some bombing operations inside Iran for the real terrorists, and you're still on The List?

We know that the CIA was making regular visits to Qendîl in 2003 through early 2004. We know that shortly after indications of CIA visits ceased, PWD appeared and we know what happened to them. Other groups from East Kurdistan are also in the South but have not been active for a while and certainly won't be active while they are controlled.

It's obvious that PKK refused whatever it was that the CIA tried repeatedly to offer back in 2003 because the US and Israel have been active in intel-gathering against PKK for both Turkey and Iran--and Seymour Hersh can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

There is absolutely no good reason for disarming, no matter who says it. As the case of the MEK proves, collaborators never win.

Also last week, Katil Erdoğan called on Obama to redefine terrorism in the Middle East. Be careful what you wish for.

Finally, I'm not the only one who thinks Katil Erdoğan is a hypocrite:

For Erdogan had told Peres that, “When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill,” which is true, but how many of those supporters outside the airport are aware that the Turkish premier also knows very well how to kill. On 17th January this year Hurriyet, the popular daily newspaper in Turkey, reported that in 2008 the Turkish military had killed 696 “outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ party, or PKK militants” in 2008. That’s just over half the number of people Israel killed in its ostensible war on Hamas, but only a moral retard will hold up such figures as a testament to Turkish humanity.

[ . . . ]

The parallels between the national narratives of Israel and Turkey are striking, the former founded in 1948, the latter in 1923. In Turkey’s case, the Palestinians are the Kurds, Hamas are the PKK, and south-east Turkey is the West Bank. Maybe this is why Turkey and Israel have had such a strong bond through the second half of the twentieth century, traditionally their governments have sympathized with each other as they carry out massive atrocities as centurions of the US empire in the Middle East. So while Erdogan was right to take on criminals like Shimon Peres maybe he should take a quick look in the mirror and stop his own illegal incursions into sovereign countries to kill “militants” and civilians alike.

Touché.

OPPRESSED AND OPPRESSORS: THE ERGENEKON DOG AND PONY SHOW

"From the beginning of their first term the AKP, starting from their leader to the lowest-ranking party member, created and shared a mythology of being oppressed."
~ Ece Temelkuran.

It looks like Leyla Zana may be going to prison for ten years. From the BBC:

A Turkish court has sentenced a Kurdish politician to 10 years in prison for spreading propaganda for the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

The court ruled that Leyla Zana had violated the penal code and the anti-terror law in nine different speeches.

Ms Zana, 47, has already spent 10 years in prison for links to the PKK, though that conviction was later overturned.

Ms Zana was not in court, and this latest conviction will not be imposed until her appeal has been heard.

Her lawyer called the sentence an "unfortunate" decision in a country working to join the European Union, and said her client's words were well within the bounds of free speech.

The prosecution sought a sixty year conviction for Leyla's crimethink. She had spoken out in London earlier this year when she spoke in London. Hevallo also had an eyewitness report on Leyla's speech in the UK parliament.

The next step will be to hear the outcome of the appeals process. I wonder if all the world's liberals will be concerned with the case of this Sakharov prize winner this time around? I'm inclined to doubt it. Our only friends are the mountains.

Of course, Leyla's conviction, and all similar prosecutions, expose clearly the weakness of the Ankara regime, which functions out of terror that truth will be spoken and heard.

Speaking of liberals, there's a very good article at Counterpunch from a Turkish Leftist, female political columnist. Thanks to the Vineyardsaker for sending the link. From the heart of the article:

A friend from the socialist left stopped me on the street the other day. His voice was anxious: “You know what, maybe you should not write about Ergenekon for a while”. He paused and sulked: “I think the way you do on this issue but you know… They made two little boxes: a Kemalist box and a liberal one. Even if you don’t fit to either of the boxes they break your arms or legs and make you fit one of them at the end. They don’t open a third box for you. This is a dangerous political climate and we are all going to be wasted in the end”.

He is right. If you ask questions about the indictment, or even if you express your concern about the seriousness of the case, there you go into the Kemalist box. If you clap your hands whenever you hear the name of the Ergenekon case, then you can be considered a democrat and can inhabit the same box as those I mentioned above. In that box the concept of democracy is reduced to freedom of faith, and its links to social justice or equality have been cut mercilessly. That is why in Turkey at the moment, if you are coming from the left, in order to be recognized as ‘not a fascist’ you are obliged to bow your head before right-wing perceptions of democracy. Even though it was the left that has been the ultimate victim of the deep state, they are for the time being the ones accused of being the deep state itself. This discourse or political climate has such a strong character that even the most intelligent and experienced spin doctors on the left have been stammering since last January about the Ergenekon case. Meanwhile the right-wing democrats, the liberals, are making noise saying that this time the gang was caught before it managed to carry out the coup. Thank god, the AKP government at the last minute busted them in the very act!

This reduction of politics to barren dualities didn’t actually start with the Ergenekon case; on the contrary, it had already been creating an intellectual industry with interesting products since the political polarization deepened with the start of the AKP’s second term. On almost every news channel there are talk-shows featuring a pro-AKP liberal democrat and an anti-AKP democrat. Since their controversies are the product on sale, these programs are visually exaggerated as well. In one of them, before the show begins they show two tigers attacking each other and in another program one, side has a black, the other a white background. The AKP, beyond its other achievements, gave Turkey this amazing present: intellectual and political discussions are now made in little boxes between black-and-white tigers!

I urge a close reading of the entire piece, particularly for the history that is recounted and the role of the Islamists in that history, particularly the fact that the Fethullahcı were founded in the wake of the 12 September coup. Not coincidentally, that was the same timeframe that saw the implementation of the Turkish-Islamic Synthesis and Turkish Hezbollah.

Finally, check Hevallo's recent post on defense lobby conflicts of interest in the UK. What a shock--they are linked to Lockheed Martin! Or, maybe not so shocking.

THE TURKISH CONSTITUTION AND THE FACADE OF DEMOCRACY, PART 2

"AKP is dragging the non-nationalistic, mild conservatives into nationalism. The discourse that it uses regarding the Kurdish question empowers the authoritarian, nationalistic vein. This is a disaster for Turkey."
~ Mithat Sancar, Ankara University.

The following is part 2 of Neşe Düzel's interview with Mithat Sancar. Part 1 is here.

ND: AKP said they would make a civil constitution, but then it retreated. Did anyone scare AKP do you think?

MS: It is not only about fear but also about various profits, balance of power, and tactics. This is AKP's effort to be "the state's favorite elite." AKP is trying to be accepted by military and civilian bureaucracy in order to enter the salon and this is the effort for that. In this, pragmatism is AKP's essential trait anyway. If this pragmatism unites with opportunism, it will be a disaster. Because in AKP there is not only pragmatism, but also an opportunistic vein. This kind of pragmatism, short-term tactical calculations, and opportunism occurs especially at election time. For that reason, AKP is engaging in authoritarian, nationalist slogans. However, since September 12, including Özal's ANAP, AKP had the most democratization potential among all the parties.

ND: Isn't it still so?

MS: It is still so, however the destructive potential of AKP is incomparably greater, compared to the other parties. AKP might be destructive. With AKP's civil attempts, the people who had problems with the system, the people which the military excluded, the people which the civil bureaucracy did not respect were all abandoned to nationalism and military understanding. However, now when AKP is getting closer to having a deal with authoritarian forces, it might drag these people back to nationalism again.

ND: Does AKP make such crowds nationalistic?

MS: AKP is now dragging portions of the population, which are mildly conservative, to nationalism. AKP is dragging the non-nationalistic, mild conservatives into nationalism. The discourse that it uses regarding the Kurdish question empowers the authoritarian, nationalistic vein. This is a disaster for Turkey. For instance, during Tansu Çiller's prime ministry, the support that she provided to the military was only a political support. Çiller did not have a social support to present to the military because the military and Çiller were standing on the same ground. AKP and the military, however, are not standing on the same ground. The more AKP gets closer to the military, the more it brings authoritarian and nationalistic support. And this is a great danger for democracy. This AKP becomes more fearful after its constitutional court closure case. The closure case precipitated the ways AKP sought to have a deal with the general staff and the civil bureaucratic elites, its bargaining and the period to get close to them. But another reason for using this kind of nationalistic language is the chief of general staff İlker Başbuğ's concept regarding the Kurdish question. Some people say Başbuğ made some room for a civil governing party for solving the Kurdish question.

ND: Don't you think it did?

MS: Quite the contrary. The general staff's new concept is as follows: "We are ready to make the gestures that you like. I can come to the government and give briefings. In appearance, I can give the impression that I am under civil authority but you are also going to cooperate with us in terms of our red lines." In short, to AKP they say, "You be on the field, but you do what we say. Implement our policies without making us appear." Now, apparently, the general staff conveyed its Kurdish policy to AKP.

ND: Did the AKP government have an agreement with the general staff regarding Kurdish policy?

MS: Now it seems so. Let me put it this way: In this country, the Kurdish question is a key problem. Any party that becomes hawkish and that goes far away from a democratic solution regarding the Kurdish question, without any exception, will be nationalistic and authoritarian. Demirel's DYP, Karayalçın's SHP, Yılmaz's ANAP, Çiller's DYP, and Erbakan's Refah all shared this end. Being hawkish on the Kurdish question does not bring anyone anything.

ND: Does PM Erdoğan's discourses result from fear or are there any other reasons for these policy changes that we don't know?

MS: AKP never had a comprehensive democratic program and Kurdish policy anyway, to let us speak of its policy change today. AKP only worked on the EU's project architecture in a good way. It's goal was limited to get a negotiation date for candidacy. Then, since the period of membership was long, it could just loosen it and sometimes it could precipitate it. Whenever AKP domestically feels weak, it gets closer to the EU project and whenever it feels strong it moves away from the EU. Now I think AKP will feel strong. As you see, the general staff also does nothing that would give a hard time to AKP.

ND: Okay, so today what exactly is the point that you say AKP got close?

MS: The center is statist. It reversed the state and whenever it gets stuck it engages in nationalistic enmity and it will say, "One state, one nation, one flag, one homeland." The center does not see the crowd's discomfort as a democratic discomfort or a demand for democracy, but rather it sees a source of disturbance. In the center of the state, there is a rigid, rude, primitive nationalistic spirit. Erdoğan's recent example, such as "love it or leave it" is an example of the central understanding. AKP's Yozgat parliamentarian's statement, "I would love to shoot whoever comes against my nation and state" is also this understanding.

ND: Does AKP want to solve the Kurdish question?

MS: AKP never had a Kurdish policy. It didn't go beyond messages. Today, at the point we are at, we see that AKP neither has the capacity, nor the power, nor the courage to get to the bottom of the Kurdish question. AKP thinks it can solve the Kurdish question by finishing DTP, which is doing politics on behalf of the Kurds. Indeed, today, all the statist environment is saying we have to support AKP in the Southeast. This is a very dangerous calculation. If AKP wins the elections, do they think the Kurdish question will end? On the contrary, the dissolution of the Kurds from the system will be deepened. Clashes will be sharpened.

ND: Why?

MS: The main barrier in front of AKP that will lead it to become a hegemonic party is not CHP; it is DTP. A hegemonic party, in appearance, is a multi-party system. However, in fact this system is de facto a one-party system, because there is no functionality of the other parties anymore. AKP is calculating to get Southeast from DTP and become Turkey's hegemonic party. There is a danger of a hegemonic party in Turkey.

Part 3 tomorrow.

LEYLA ZANA: 60 YEARS FOR CRIMETHINK

"It is a shame in the name of Turkish democracy that I have appeared before the judge for my thoughts."
~ Leyla Zana.

There may be a change in Leyla Zana's term of imprisonment, from Yeni Özgür Politika:

60 years demanded for Zana

Former DEP parliamentarian Leyla Zana has been sued for nine separate speeches and 60 years have been demanded for her conviction.

The Diyarbakır chief prosecutor sued Leyla Zana for nine separate speeches she gave in Amed, Batman, Bingöl, the European Parliament, and for several other speeches she delivered within the past year. Her speeches violate the Struggle Against Terrorism Act (Anti-Terror Law) 3713, Article 7/2, "praising illegal organizations," and TCK Articles 314/2 and 314/3, "being a member of an illegal organization" and "committing a crime on behalf of an illegal organization". Sixty years of imprisonment is being demanded of Zana.

According to the indictment against her, Zana has been convicted of "praising the PKK and the Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan," "inciting hatred in the youth for serving in the military," "referring to Southeastern Turkish provinces as 'North Kurdistan'", "referring to Northern Iraq as 'Southern Kurdistan'", "referring to Öcalan's capture as 'an earthquake in the hearts of the Kurdish people'", "referring to TSK operations as 'raining bullets on the Kurdish people'", and for participating in the Êdî Bes e movement.

I've only seen this in English in one other place, so I've been wondering: where are all those humanitarians, progressives, European politicians, and others who took up the cause of the imprisonment of the DEP parliamentarians? Where are those who awarded Leyla Zana the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought? Or is this prize not given so much to honor those who've sacrificed for human rights as to assuage the guilt and stroke the egos of the European Parliament?

I mean, Zana said that this current conviction was for crimethink: "It is a shame in the name of Turkish democracy that I have appeared before the judge for my thoughts."

Now that we have the bullshit Global War on Terror, Inc., crimethink is the order of the day.

REAL TERRORISM

"Today, we talk a lot about terrorism, but we rarely talk about state terrorism."
~ Bianca Jagger.

Reality check from the Kurdistan Democratic Alliance, in full, emphasis mine:

The unholy alliance between a terrorist state (Turkey) and its backers: USA and EU


The Turkish hostilities against Kurdish nation have taken a serious stage. In the last few weeks, the Turkish warplanes have bombed the territories of southern Kurdistan, which resulted in displacing, according to UNHCR, at least 18,000 [actually 1,800--Mizgîn] and wounding and killing a number of civilians. Thanks to the moral and logistic support of the United States of America, Turkish attacks against civilians have been effective. Those Kurds, who have been displaced, wounded or killed, are those who opened the Northern Front for the USA during the war against Saddam Hussein, while Turkish Parliament refused to allow the USA to use its territory. The same parliament has given the mandate to the Turkish army to invade southern Kurdistan. The US and Turkish pretext is to pursue a terrorist organisation.

The US and EU may regard the PKK as a “terrorist organisation” but Kurds regard Turkey and its allies as “Terrorist States”. “State Terror” is the most devastating form of terror to the civilians and the environment.

The PKK is not the cause; it is the symptom of the lack of democracy, civil society, rule of law and severe oppression of the Kurdish nation by the Turkish state. The suppression of the Kurds in Turkey may have constituted genocide. It can be safely argued that, if not physical genocide, Turkey has committed cultural genocide against the Kurds. [Cultural genocide being the same thing as physical genocide since, in this case, both wipe Kurds off the Earth--Mizgîn]

Nonetheless, the PKK is an important element of the Kurdish cause in the north. In the absence of democratic elections for northern Kurds to elect their representatives for their own regional government and parliament, the PKK today is the most effective organisation in asserting the Kurdish identity, which is banned in Turkey despite the EU’s claim of changes in Turkey domestic policies. If we like it or not, millions of Kurds in the north regard the PKK as their own representative. This reality has to be accepted by Turkey, United States and E.U.

If Turkey, EU and USA are genuine in solving the “Turkish problem” and meet the “Kurdish quest”, they must have the courage to pursue granting the Kurdish nation their legal status that they deserve, the right to self determination. This is the same right that any European nations, like Scottish, Wales, Basks and other have. It is nothing new and it is in accordance to the United Nations charter.

The hypocrisy of the EU member states is clear. They would even encourage the accession of a nation like Scotland. They support a Palestinian state and are ready to recognise an independent Kosovo while they link the Kurdish quest for their legitimate rights to “terrorism”.

Turkey as a state, that rejects the recognition of a nation of 40 million people, must not be given any space among the civilised nations. US and EU, have their share in the present repression to that the Kurdish people are subjected. The US and EU alliance with Turkey is against human dignity, democracy, human Rights and social justice. Yet, both the USA and EU consider themselves as the defenders of these concepts.

While the Turkish terror campaign continuous, the Kurdish leadership in Kurdistan and Iraq have proven that they are in shambles and incapable of leading the nation. Their failure in implementing Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution within its timescale, end of 2007, is a living example of the current leadership’s failure. The Kurdistani people deserve a more capable leadership than its current one, which appear to have no strategy and they compromise on all the Kurdish national interests. They have a too comfortable life and are not ready to sacrifice this comfort for the Kurdish national interests. A leadership that is drawn deep in corruption form top to bottom is unable to progress a quest of a nation.

The Kurds must not stay idle while they are slaughtered under the pretext of terrorists. They must stage a worldwide political and diplomatic campaign to undo the current regime of suppression. Turkey and its backers, US and EU, must understand that they cannot continue this suppression for longer. The Kurdish nation is well aware of this international conspiracy and they would react in due course.

The Kurdistan Democratic Alliance condemn strongly the naked present aggression against Kurdish nation and demand the aggressors to opt for peaceful and democratic solution that enforces peace and stability in the whole region of Middle East. The Kurdistan Democratic Alliance also calls upon the US and EU to honour the democracy, human rights and social justice they preach.

The Kurdistan Democratic Alliance

26 December 2007

Now, I would urge everyone to think back to the time when the TBMM voted for cross-border operations into South Kurdistan. Who were the only parliamentarians to vote against military operations? The only ones to vote against the military option were the DTP parliamentarians and Ufuk Uras, the ethnic Turk socialist of the ÖDP. And that is how you tell who are the real Kurds in the TBMM.

In fact, Ufuk Uras is more Kurdish than Barzanî or Talabanî.

OPEN LETTER TO GEOFF HOON, MP, MINISTER OF STATE FOR EUROPE

Urgent call for an independent investigation into the alleged poisoning of Abdullah Ocalan

Fears that Abdullah Ocalan is slowly being poisoned in his Turkish prison cell are now being voiced with emergence of alarming evidence derived from independent laboratory tests made on samples of his hair.

The hair sample, obtained by his visiting lawyers, was sent to independent scientific analytical experts acting impartially with no knowledge as to whom the hair samples had belonged. Their analysis conclusively shows higher than normal levels of the elements strontium and chromium were present. This has confirmed the fears of Kurds that Mr Öcalan may be suffering from contamination with toxic chemicals while in prison.

An independent investigation - incidentally, also called for by the respected Turkish Human Rights Association (IHD), the Organization for Human Rights & Solidarity for Oppressed People (MAZLUMDER), and the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (TIHV) - is the only way to allay fears that there is no organized plot to poison the Kurdish leader, who has now been in jail for 9 years and who reaches the age of 60 in 2008.

EU parliamentarian Feleknas Uca has also called upon EU states to take action: "Europe must send an independent doctors' committee to Imrali, and this is urgent". At the same time, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) must visit Ocalan with Uca noting the following: "European states that criticize Guantanamo risk credibility by closing their eyes to Ocalan, who is [also] deprived of his legal rights in isolation at Imrali Island".

We wish to remind you that Turkey has an obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights not to subject anyone to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. An independent investigation will not only establish the true facts but will also act to ensure that the Turkish state, if found guilty of charges that have been levelled, will be held accountable to them. We urge EU member states that are currently involved in monitoring the EU-Turkey 'accession process' to also endorse the call for an independent investigation into the matter.

Many Kurds are rightly concerned over the results obtained by the tests that have been undertaken. As Aysel Tugluk, deputy chairwoman of the Democratic Society Party (DTP), the main constitutional Kurdish supported political party in Turkey, told reporters, "If the allegations are true, it means that a planned murder is being consciously committed". Such an illegal act, if true, clearly represents a 'provocation' that must be condemned by all western leaders who claim to promote democratic and peaceful 'values', for it appears to be designed to stimulate conflict between Kurds and Turks at a time when peaceful initiatives, surely, must be supported.

Turkey appears to be embarking on a dangerous trajectory with now a real danger of the country descending into civil unrest and instability should the worst fears of many Kurds be allowed to go unheeded. Ocalan - who "was extraordinarily rendered by the US, Israel, and Turkey, in 1999, with the same wink-and-nod complicity of the EU" (Yilmaz, 2007) - remains a key player in any peace process that Turkey needs to engage with if it wishes to resolve the 'Kurdish Question', a move essential for it to become a fully fledged democratic state.

Recognising your keen interest in international affairs, we have hopes that you can give this matter your urgent attention.

Signed by


Signatories


Prof Noam Chomsky

Mark Thomas, comedian/journalist

Lord Dholakia

Lord Rea

Hywel Williams MP

Elfyn Llwyd MP

Rudi Vis MP

Prof Bill Bowring, Barrister, Professor of Law, Birkbeck College, University of London School of Law

Margaret Owen, Barrister, Member of the Bar Human Rights Committee. Adviser to the Kurdish Human Rights Project. Director of Widows for Peace through Democracy.

Richard McKane, Poet, Translator and Human Rights Interpreter

Professor Ken Coates, Chair of Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation

Stan Newens, President of “Liberation”

Stewart Hemsley, Chair Pax Christi

Nick Hildyard, policy analyst

Ben Hayes, Statewatch

David Morgan, journalist

Desmond Fernandes, political analyst, author of 'The Kurdish Genocide in Turkey' (Apec, 2007, forthcoming), Peace in Kurdistan Campaign

Frances Webber, barrister Garden Court Chambers

Smita Shah, barrister Garden Court Chambers

Jo Wilding, barrister Garden Court Chambers

Hugo Charlton, barrister

Professor HI Pilikian, Historian

Khatchatur I. Pilikian, Professor of Music & Art

Les Levidow, Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (CAMPACC)

Tom Frost, CAMPACC

Kofi Mawuli Klu, Chair Pan-Arikan Task Force for Internationalist Dialogue (PATFID)

Rachel Bird, human rights campaigner

Pete Weatherby, barrister at Garden Court North, Manchester

Jonathan Bloch, Liberal Democrat Councillor for Muswell Hill

Dr G Siddiqui, Leader of The Muslim Parliament

Ann Rossiter, writer

Sarah Parker, translator

Arzu Pesmen, Chair of Kurdish Federation UK

Ibrahim Dogus, Chair Halkevi Kurdish Turkish Community Centre

Alex Fitch, Peace in Kurdistan Campaign

Estella Schmid, Peace in Kurdistan Campaign



Copies of the letter will be sent to:

Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe
Tony Lloyd MP, Leader of British delegation to CoE
Mr Murat Mercan (Justice & Development Party), President of Turkish delegation to CoE
Mr Abdul Kadir Ates(Republican People's Party), Chairperson of Political Affairs Committee of CoE

Contact: Peace in Kurdistan Campaign

Estella24@tiscali.co.uk

Tel 020 7586 5892