DTP'S DEMOCRATIC AUTONOMY PROJECT, PART A

"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."
~ DTP, Democratic Autonomy Project.

Now you all get the chance to see why MHP, BBP, CHP and the rest have their panties in knots. From the email inbox, DTP's "Democratic Autonomy Project" document, Part A (Gelek sipas, Heval):

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.

Part B tomorrow.

MORE ON DTP'S PROPOSED SOLUTION

"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."
~ Harry S. Truman.

For those who enjoyed the previous discussion on DTP's solution by Gülay Göktürk last week, here's a continuation of her thoughts, at Bugün:

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.

ALREADY IN TROUBLE

"Feto is more dangerous than Apo."
~ Banner protesting Erdoğan during Women's Day protests.

Is President-elect Obama in trouble with the Ankara regime already? Maybe:

“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.

OOPS!

Gordon Taylor has more:

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.

Read the rest and check the links, as well as a copy of the heart of a potential Armenian Genocide resolution.

Don't forget to check Hevallo, who has a translation of the letter from KCK to Obama.

Perhaps even more importantly, check Hevallo's post on Katil Erdoğan's children. A teaser:

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.

"Vile, disgusting and shameful" indeed. Check the post for links to footage of the ITV expose.

Although shocking, it shouldn't come as a surprise, really. We are, after all, speaking about the same prime minister under whose ruling party we have seen the deaths of many infants in hospitals just this year:

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.

TDN, now Hürriyet, reported at the beginning of October that university hospitals were even worse:

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.

Another item, published after the July deaths:

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

And all of this under the watch of a ruling party whose leader told Turkish women on International Women's Day, 2008, that they should all give birth to at least three children.

"Vile, disgusting and shameful" . . . but consistent if you're a religious nut case.

SEEING THE LIGHT

"The citizen, whose life is threatened, will defend himself if he has the chance."
~ R. Tayyip Erdoğan.

I have a few bits and pieces for your perusal tonight.

Firstly, there's another example of AKP's Kurdish policy at Özgür Gündem, where you'll find a video of a Kurdish youth run over by a police vehicle in Yüksekova.

Does everyone remember when Katil Erdoğan said that PKK was using children in protests after Erdoğan's disastrous visit to Amed (Diyarbakır)? Check out this photo from Radikal:





There you see a robocop encouraging children to throw stones for him. No sign of Bahoz Erdal in the photo, however.

On this election night, Hevallo bids a fond farewell to President Bush by publishing some of his more memorable remarks.

Next, the Fethullahcı university has opened in Hewlêr:

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.

So it appears that Gülen is doing the same thing in Hewlêr as he's doing in the Central Asia and the US:

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.

Read all of it at Kurdish Aspect to find out how Gülen spreads his poison.

More on Internet censorship in Turkey from Yahoo News:

"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."

Reporters Without Borders calls for the amendment of Law 5651, under which Turkey is currently censoring the Internet:

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.

Bianet reports that Blogger.com is temporarily available in Turkey, pending collection of "evidence":

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.

Finally, here's a video of a guy in Istanbul threatening DTP supporters with a shotgun:

For the record, let me point out a Erdoğan's remark on the shotgun incident:

"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.

Thank you, Sayın Başbakan. This is exactly what PKK has been doing for twenty-four years. I'm overjoyed to know that you finally see the light.

JUST A REMINDER

"On election day, I stay home. I don't vote. Fuck 'em."
~ George Carlin.

Just in case you're planning on voting for the status quo, for either the Republicrats or Demopublicans, here's a reminder:

So who is it that sucks?

TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO OR NOT

"Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently."
~ Rosa Luxemburg.

If you're going to waste your time voting tomorrow, here are a few links for you to read and consider.

First, Noam Chomsky has endorsed Green Party candidates Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente:

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."

The Green Party platform in a nutshell:

"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.

More at the Green Party homepage.

Twelve reasons to reject Obama and vote any other way at all:

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.

More on the Greens, especially for those who want to see women holding the highest political office in the US--I mean, it was that whole sexism argument that boosted Clinton and Palin, right?

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.

And then there's the argument of either vote independent or boycott:

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.

Of course, we already know what a vote for Demopublicans or Republicrats means for the situation of Kurds in Turkey. It means business as usual, as it has been since 1923. It means business as usual in the bullshit Global War on Terror, Incorporated. In fact, a vote for the Demopublicans/Republicrats--one in the same party, actually--means a maintenance of the status quo no matter what the issue.

If you haven't done it already, it's time to think long and hard about what you're going to do tomorrow if you are eligible to vote in the US.

DTP'S PROPOSED SOLUTION

"Once more the civil administrative arrangements are being tried, which simply takes us further away from the essence of the problem. It is enough! We should put in effect some measures that will increase the trust of our Kurdish citizens [in the system]."
~ Ufuk Uras.

There were protests throughout the Van and Hakkari regions this weekend in protest of Katil Erdoğan's two-day visit, with a weekend sit-in protest in Diyarbakır in front of the TSK 7th Corps headquarters building. On Sunday, the protests spread to Istanbul.

Turkish media, including Kanal A, Cihan News Agency, NTV, Zaman, Doğan News Agency, and TRT were all prevented from reaching or remaining in Hakkari due to the protests.

The AKP parliamentarians from Hakkari were prevented from entering the city as well.

On Saturday, while Katil Erdoğan was in Van, the AKP office in Hakkari was bombed.

DTP had planned a weekend of protest but last week also brought proposals for a solution to the Kurdish situation to the TBMM:

. . . [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."

Gülay Göktürk at Bugün wrote some commentary on DTP's proposals Friday. It's fitting to post those comments here, at the end of a long weekend of political struggle:

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.

Once again there is a reasonable solution presented for the situation of Kurds in Turkey, just as reasonable as PKK's democratic resolution, and it is clear that those on the Left in Turkey, along with the intellectuals are open to a political solution. Unfortunately, I have to agree with Avni Özgürel on the reason for the continued rejection of a political solution by the Ankara regime:

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?

This is a fact that was very clear recently during Joseph Ralston's reign as "special envoy to coordinate the PKK for Turkey" and it's the only reason for the War on Terror, Inc.

FALSE FLAG OPERATION PLANNED FOR 2009

"I personally think that everyone - journalists, professors, politicians - must think about the implications of the strategy if tension and the false flag. Here we are, indeed, in presence of phenomena that escape from every kind of agreement. That is why, every time that there are terrorist attacks, we must ask questions and try to understand what that implies."
~ Daniele Ganser.

It sounds to me like the Washington regime is planning another, major, false flag operation like it did seven years ago to initiate the corporate-friendly "Global War on Terror, Inc."

From 20 October:

"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."

From Colin "Saddam-Has-Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction" Powell:

From Madeleine "One-Million-Dead-Iraqi-Kids-Are-Definitely-Worth-It" Allbright:

Coincidentally, or not, the Pentagon and its consultants are all ready to act:

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."

Because the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act weren't enough, Congress is looking into creating a domestic "intelligence" agency:

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.

Also--again because the PATRIOT Act and Military Commissions Act weren't enough--NORTHCOM became operational on 1 October:

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.

Meanwhile, can it be that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have already been coordinating the upcoming false flag operation with the general staffs of other nations?

Will that upcoming false flag operation have anything to do with biowarfare? Were the recent anthrax-wannabe mailings a dry-run for all of this?

Just in case, the Department of Homeland Security will be opening a new bio-"defense" lab in Maryland.

Inquiring minds want to know.

BAŞBUĞ KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED AT AKTÜTÜN, PART 3

"Besides, to solve the Kurdish question, Öcalan must be contacted, must be talked with. There is no one in Turkey, with the exception of him [Öcalan] to solve this problem. There is no one with the exception of him that can contribute as much as him to solve this problem."
~ Avni Özgürel.

Today is the third and final part of the interview between Taraf's Neşe Düzel and researcher Avni Özgürel (Part 1; Part 2):

ND: Aktütün is being raided frequently and we have martyrs there. Doesn't PKK increase its morale by giving the Turkish army such casualties?

AÖ: Of course, yes. Even the press statement that the Chief of General Staff had, in which he revealed his anger, resulted in increasing PKK's morale and motivation by saying, "We make the world's eighth largest army's commander go crazy".

ND: The Chief of General Staff gave a very rigid and very angry response to our newspaper's statement that the raid was known well before. The people who were supporting him the most also said it is not an acceptable thing. Why do you think he had such an angry reaction?

AÖ: Actually, the Chief of General Staff is projecting his anger for those in his ranks onto others. Otherwise, someone who rises to a general's position, it is impossible for him not to know what happened at Aktütün. He does know what happened there, who is responsible, and what was wrong in the mechanism that was running. However, in Turkey, all the institutions have the attitude of "let's cover it". But right now in Turkey, the situation is changing. Society is questioning, as "What happened at Aktütün". For that reason, the Chief of General Staff's statement is not persuasive; it is not satisfying them anymore.

ND: The government, on the other hand, rather than opening an investigation of Aktütün, supported the Chief of General Staff. The Prime Minister took General Başbuğ's side. Erdoğan had done the same thing in Şemdinli as well. However, AKP has not emerged from the shadow of Şemdinli yet. How do you think creating a second Şemdinli will affect AKP?

AÖ: It will affect them negatively. This attitude will affect AKP's constituencies in a negative way, and has already done so.

ND: Do you think Erdoğan had a deal with the military?

AÖ: I think Erdoğan desires very much to have a deal with the military. However, the military still has some reserve against him.

ND: Do you think AKP is reinforcing its ruling power or weakening its ruling power by supporting the general's angry statement instead of investigating the reason for the incident?

AÖ: It weakens. In Turkey, no ruling political entity has a concern about being capable. All of them are trying to have a deal with the military. In all Turkish history, only Turgut Özal tried to be capable of ruling rather than having a deal with the military, and he paid the price.

ND: The Kurdish question lies under all these raids, clashes, and bloodshed, and AKP is not taking any concrete step to solve the problem. Did ruling political parties pass the question to the military?

AÖ: They cannot pass it because this is not a job the military can do. This is not a security issue. This is an issue of Turkish democratization. And, of course, when you democratize Turkey, you won't have any problem with head scarf, you won't have any problem with the Kurdish question. In Turkey, if the EU's democratic standards become dominant, neither the military will be unquestionable nor will our distorted judiciary be the way it is. Neither will corruption be at the level it is today. However, in this country, it is not wanted to solve the Kurdish question, because there are people who are profiting from it, not only the soldiers, but the security units, politicians, businessmen. In short, a big part of society benefits from this question. The Kurdish question is feeding all the ommissions and illegal money.

ND: How do you think the Kurdish question be solved?

AÖ: Starting from cultural and political rights, all the disturbing texts, including the constitution in Turkey, must be rewritten. The notion of Kurds and Turks are like [finger]nail and flesh must be reflected in the law. Besides, to solve the Kurdish question, Öcalan must be contacted, must be talked with. There is no one in Turkey, with the exception of him [Öcalan] to solve this problem. There is no one with the exception of him that can contribute as much as him to solve this problem.

ND: Why? Is PKK under Öcalan's control?

AÖ: By and large, yes, it is under his control. A formulation must be created that Öcalan can convince his grassroots. Meanwhile, the İmralı era must also end. His release may not be the case, but Öcalan can be imprisoned in very good conditions and his wish is not to be released anyway. In Turkey, in a place wherever he wants, leaving him away from politics, somewhere may be bought for him, and let him see his visitors there. Turkish punishment and execution laws are available for this change. I know that the solution must be in this way. I know that the analysis that says this issue must be solved in this way exists in Turkey's hands today.

ND: Will the soldiers be close to such a solution?

AÖ: I know that, in terms of the military, they are getting closer to this end. Even now, it is being written in several places that Öcalan has been spoken to by general-ranked commanders. Look, the Kurdish question is not merely a law or violence issue, there is also a psychological dimension to it. We call PKK a "terrorist" organization; however, is PKK only a "terrorist" organization? There is no single European country where they don't have a representative. They have diplomatic relationships with states. Thousands of Öcalan's posters are being held in protests. PKK has exceeded being a "terrorist" organization. It is in a well-advanced form right now.

ND: What do you think Öcalan was talked to about in İmralı?

AÖ: Especially the intelligence unit talked to him and the answer to the question, "Can the Kurdish question be solved?" was sought at that time. The answer was revealed as "Yes, it can be solved". Both the military and intelligence units know this answer. However, on the military side, it is a matter of courage to do this.

ND: Ergenekon paşas also went to İmralı. What did they talk about with Öcalan?

AÖ: "This man can finish terror. If terror ends, what are we going to do?" is one dimension of this job. 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? Turkey must immediately solve its Kurdish question, otherwise it will lead to separation. Kurdish nationalism is becoming a very big danger.

ND: The relationship between PKK and Ergenekon has been mentioned. What kind of relationship do they have?

AÖ: In the past they were intertwined. This relationship is not only in drug-trafficking but also in operational levels. It might have been said to PKK that "You guys have been cowards. You better do some noisy stuff [shooting] or we will step in".

ND: DTP's closure case is ongoing. Are they going to shut it down?

AÖ: I hope they do not. The Kurdish question will get damaged very badly in DTP's closure. The defense that, "Hmm, this question is not being solved politically, well, the people on the mountains are right". This logic will become prevalent in people's minds. Thus enlistment in the mountains will increase and the support for the struggle in the mountains will increase at the same time.

ND: Does Ergenekon have a share in the rising terror?

AÖ: Not the Ergenekon that we're investigating, but the real Ergenekon has. Ergenekon is a structure in MİT and in the military and, in Turkey, Ergenekon will never end. The current Ergenekon was the formation that was revealed at Susurluk. One part of this imprisoned Ergenekon was revealed at Susurluk and it is eliminated. There will be another version of such a formation.

ND: Regional elections are getting closer. How do you think Prime Minister Erdoğan's recent statements will affect the vote in the Southeast?

AÖ: Today's jargon will make AKP lose in Diyarbakır and I think the votes that create a gap between AKP and DTP is getting wider in favor of DTP.

ND: Today in Turkey, is there any politician that can solve the Kurdish question and make peace feasible?

AÖ: No, there is not. The main problem is this anyway: the job is not being done just by raising Diyarbakırspor to promote it to the first league from the second or third league. Let the Kurds be everywhere in this country, in politics . . . . the Kurdish question is not about their songs or folklore or their football. Turkey must discuss if you eliminate Kurds from politics.

In addition, today on NPR's evening news program, All Things Considered, was a radio report on the media feeding frenzy in Turkey over the military and the Bezele (Aktütün) operation. Included is a short discussion of Taraf's leading role in the criticism of the paşas and you can hear Yasemin Çongar present Taraf's reasoning for publishing the evidence which has damned the paşas over HPG's Bezele operation. Listen here or read the transcript, on the same page.

BAŞBUĞ KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED AT AKTÜTÜN, PART 2

"The people who are executing PKK's struggle, including Bayık and Karayılan, have been there for 25 years. We don't have any general that has served in the Southeast more than two years. "
~ Avni Özgürel.

Here is part 2 of the interview between Taraf's Neşe Düzel and researcher Avni Özgürel (Part 1 is here):

ND: Has drug-trafficking been used in financing the struggle against PKK?

AÖ: Of course it has been used. From the Southeast to Edirne (NW Turkey), drugs were transported along with official escorts. The people who got involved with this, after some time, said, "Why should I endanger myself on the mountain while there is an option to share the drugs and to extort and to form gangs? Why should I go into PKK and collect information for JITEM?"

ND: However, in Aktütün, there was the case that there was no lack of intelligence.

AÖ: That's true. For the Aktütün raid, there were additional things, let alone receiving intelligence. There are TV's that are close to PKK; they have their publications. For instance, in Roj TV, "on 21 August our congress is assembling in Qendil" they broadcast. The administrators, including from Europe, joined this congress. Cemil Bayık, Murat Karayılan, all of them were there. The meeting lasted for ten days and there were scenes and interviews in Roj TV. 21 August means two weeks before the Aktütün raid. PJAK also joined PKK's congress, which lasted until 30 August.

ND: You mean Iran's PKK also joined?

AÖ: When PKK said, "we have serious casualties because of Turkish aerial attacks", the head of PJAK, which is a branch of PKK in Iran, joined the Qendil congress and PJAK's chief Hacı Ahmet said, "From now on our first target is Turkey," all these things happened ten days ago. In Qendil there weren't just three people, there were twelve hundred people that assembled. However, the armed forces did not have a single aerial operation in August.

ND: Why didn't they do that?

AÖ: We have to explain this. People want to know the answer to this question. If you are willing to finish PKK, and if you are so angry, PKK's whole administrative groups were there. PKK could have been annihilated. This congress did not take only one day, but ten days. Let's say you could not see those people who came to the border, you said the geography is very mountainous, and so forth. Haven't you even watched the party's television? After this congress, seventeen youths were killed at Aktütün. Right after that, police were shot in Diyarbakır and there were some explanations or statements that were labeling the journalists who were asking about the errors in this incident as traitors to the country.

ND: Our army is fighting in the Southeast for years, and they must be very experienced in this. How come these kinds of raids are still occuring?

AÖ: If you send the youths, who have eight months of military training, and you send them to fight against PKK at the very far point of the border, this is a normal result. Look at the people who were killed at Aktütün, they were inexperienced kids. The people who are executing PKK's struggle, including Bayık and Karayılan, have been there for 25 years. We don't have any general that has served in the Southeast more than two years. Whoever stays there longer than that goes crazy.

ND: How?

AÖ: In advanced countries, the people who serve in hot zones more than one or two years, the army gives them a new assignment, say in airports, for a six month period in order to rehabilitate, to let them see people. We don't have such a thing. One time, an old friend of mine came to Istanbul and I took him to an entertaining place. There, at the table, he became like he would use his weapon against me [saying] "we are dying there and you are dancing here". He had cut himself off from the real world.

ND: Back to Aktütün, what happened there and what will happen there?

AÖ: Now we are sending a new unit to Aktütün. Now you imagine the family that has a son that has been sent to this place again. After one year they say they are going to move the garrison 300 meters away. Why are you defending there? You are defending a 300 meter height? As an excuse they say, "Well, in Lausanne our borders were drawn wrong and for that reason let's form a buffer zone". They are making very stupid suggestions and supposedly they are going to tell this to Iraq. Iraq will say, "Okay, form a buffer zone"; but they will include, "You form that buffer zone within your borders. Why do you think particularly of my territory when you suggest a buffer zone?" they will ask. Nevertheless, until Arbil (Hewler), that region is also mountainous. Where are you going to form the buffer zone? Besides, the US will say, "We gave you Öcalan and you could not solve the problem; we are giving you intelligence and you cannot solve the problem again." And when we come to the Iraqi regime, we are pressuring them, and still it's not doing anything.

ND: Don't you think the people who've been trained as chiefs of general staff are thinking with this logic?

AÖ: In politics, despite their failures, they do the same old thing. Similarly, they do the same old thing in the military as well. Everyone does their period [of service] and retires, and I don't think they know comprehensively about the region's history very well.

ND: Okay, but how can we explain the fact that the ommission of the intelligence that was received way before? Don't they take the intelligence seriously?

AÖ: There will be two consequences of the Aktütün investigation. Either you will say, "We received all the intelligence and we did all the evaluation; however, we could not complete the required protection web with helicopters within six hours." In this case, those responsible for this failure must immediately be taken before the highest military court. Or, "There may be intelligence, but we did not give credibility to its occurrence". Then, this means this will lead to questions of your military capabilities and your chief of staff's capabilities. If the Aktütün investigation does not take those responsible, who are in a command level . . .

ND: What will happen?

AÖ: This means there is a very hopeless situation in Turkey. This investigation must end up with finding the responsible commanders and give a satisfying explanation to the public, and take these people who were responsible in front of the military court.

ND: An operation that is known way ahead of time, and that is being watched through aerial surveillance, how can it not be prevented?

AÖ: This incident definitely must have several responsible parties in various positions. Otherwise it is not very credible to say, "It is not Aktütün; these scenes being broadcast are all lies"--this kind of fake explanation--Publishing these radio transcripts [of HPG guerrillas], all these are lies. It is hard to be very persuasive with this mentality. In Turkey, including the armed forces, every institution must be held accountable. If you spend all the world's money for Foca [in Izmir] and you say that you do not have money for the Aktütün garrison, someone definitely question this. And I think they must do so, too. In Turkey there was a very serious change. People are now asking, they are questioning, and they are not seeing the people who are silent.

ND: Okay, when one knows about a raid like Aktütün ahead of time, with deterrent precaution, can we stop such raids?

AÖ: Of course it would deter. In the Aktütün raid, the people who condoned the implementation of this raid, or the people who did not take sufficient precaution, in whatever position they are, those people, whether in the rank of general or a force commander--any position--they must be taken before the public. And the Chief of General Staff's statement that "the investigation has started and the result will be declared" this must be considered as a commitment. On every occasion, the press must ask the chief of general staff what is the result of the Aktütün investigation.

ND: A while ago you touched on the issue that the Aktütün garrison would shut down. Even last May, after it had a raid, why was such a garrison not shut down after that raid? Is not shutting down such a place consistent with military logic?

AÖ: Of course it is not consistent. I went to Aktütün. It is a ghetto-like place. Indeed it is a guarding garrison. In a raid, it gets damaged remarkably; however, Aktütün seems like an honor issue for our army. Of course there is a moral meaning about those people who were martyred there, but indeed all these border garrisons are actually graveyards. We never know what's going to happen to those kids. It is not certain there. When an artillery shell explodes, we don't know how many people will die. All these border garrisons must be removed.

ND: Can the borders be protected without garrisons?

AÖ: Well, what's going to happen by protecting there anyway? Is the place that you defend your country a place 3,000 meters high in the mountains? You get down on the slopes of the mountain and prevent infiltration there. These border garrisons were established for those Iraqi villager smugglers who were bringing kaçak tea, tobacco, cigarettes, and drugs. And they put four jandarma [there] in order to tell those people to raise their hands and surrender. They have established those garrisons with this mentality. These garrisons were not established to prevent guerrilla attacks. The problem is not where the garrisons are located; the problem is the existence of these garrisons. There is no profit or gain from these garrisons. Until this time they could not even prevent any single entrance.

Part 3 tomorrow.