19 October 2001

1. "Despite record, Turkish prison fasts leave world indifferent", a year after Turkish prisoners began fasting to protest prison reforms, 41 people have starved themselves to death, far beyond the unhappy record set by republican inmates in Northern Ireland in the 1980s.

2. "Analysis: Turkey's pivotal position", as the only Muslim member of Nato, and a country on the border of East and West, Turkey potentially has an important role to play in the military action against Afghanistan.

3. "Turkey: Genuine Reform Has Not Happened Yet", Human Rights Watch will loudly welcome genuine reform in Turkey whenever it happens - but it has not happened yet.

4. "Accession of Cyprus to EU and its implications for Turkish foreign and Domestic Policies", the traditional European policy towards Turkey and Greece, since the end of the First World War was a policy of equi-distance or a policy of balanced approach.

5. "The way to solution is open", "The utter confusion to be experienced in the Middle East will open the way to solution for Kurds. The opportunities for this have arousen. Intervention will develop them more. The rest is dependent on the Kurds. If political, military and diplomatic activities are done, the Kurds may have a place in the re-arranged Middle East."

6. "Verheugen: '11 Sept. strengthened Turkey-EU ties', speaking at the foundation meeting of the Europe-Turkey Foundation, EU Commissioner for Enlargement Gunther Verheugen said that following the terrorist attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, Turkey-Europe ties have become stronger and their mutual needs have increased, the Anatolia news agency reported yesterday.

1. - AFP - "Despite record, Turkish prison fasts leave world indifferent":

ISTANBUL/ by Jerome Bastion

A year after Turkish prisoners began fasting to protest prison reforms, 41 people have starved themselves to death, far beyond the unhappy record set by republican inmates in Northern Ireland in the 1980s. Yet in spite of the continuing death toll -- the 41st death occurred on Thursday, just a day before the first anniversary of the hunger strike campaign -- the Turkish prisoners' fight has left much of the world indifferent.

Like the Irish republican hunger strikes in 1981, which saw 10 activists starve themselves to death in a campaign that shocked the world, the Turkish inmates are protesting administrative changes which they see as undermining their claim to be political prisoners. The campaign began on October 20, 2000 in protest against the authorities' decision to move prisoners from far-left political groups to new so-called "F-type" jails in which they occupy small cells, rather than large communal spaces as previously. The prisoners see the new arrangements as being aimed at isolating them from one another, thereby making them more vulnerable to mistreatment.

In addition to the 41 people who have died in the hunger strikes -- the latest being Ali Ekber Baris, a 30-year-old father of one who died in hospital in the town of Izmit -- 30 prisoners and two guards died when security forces stormed jails around the country in December last year. One other hunger striker died by self-immolation in late September when police intervened at the funeral of another hunger striker. And according to the Turkish Human Rights association (IHD), no less than 200 prisoners are still fasting inside prisons, with some 300 on hunger strike in hospital, after having been released for six months on account of their weakened condition.

A further 25 people, many of them relatives of prisoners, are on sympathy hunger strikes outside the prison system. The raids on the prisons last December marked the coming into force of the new "F-Type" jails, but it also increased the determination of the hunger strikers. "The only choice we have is between dying as resistance fighters via hunger strikes, or dying under torture, so we're ready," said 26-year-old Omer Berber, who was recently released under judicial supervision on account of his weakening health after 125 days of fasting. He added that his far-left organization had ordered him to suspend his hunger strike when he was let out, but that if he was sent back into prison under the same conditions he would immediately resume it. Mehmet Bekaroglu, a member of a parliamentary human rights commission, said that the Turkish government was "obsessed by national security, and not too worried about saving lives."

Bekaroglu said he had suggested giving the prisoners the right to enjoy some group activities in the new prisons as a way of ending the strike, but that had so far not happened. Justice Minister Hikmet Sami Turk has said in no uncertain terms that the prison reform will be pushed through without modification. The government's refusal to yield has meant that the main debate has been between members of the medical profession, who worry about whether they are right to step in to prevent terminal hunger-strikers from dying. Hakan Gurvit, a brain specialist who has argued that the prisoners' expressed wish to die should be respected, said: "Our profession cannot be subject to politicians' wishes; that would be unethical."

However Nezih Varol, a top medical specialist, said that such an attitude showed "ignorance." "A doctor's role is to prevent people from dying," he said flatly. "It is therefore a duty to treat these people when they are no longer capable of hearing their doctors' warnings." The justice ministry has brought a lawsuit against a doctors' trade union on the grounds that it was encouraging its members not to assist people in danger of death.

2. - BBC - "Analysis: Turkey's pivotal position":

As the only Muslim member of Nato, and a country on the border of East and West, Turkey potentially has an important role to play in the military action against Afghanistan.

So far, the government has offered to help train and equip the forces fighting the Taleban, and has said it is ready to commit troops to a post-conflict peacekeeping force.

There have also been unconfirmed reports that Turkish special forces could play some role in a US-led ground offensive - though publicly Ankara has said it is reluctant to play a combat role.

Turkey has already opened its airspace to US aircraft, and transport planes have been using the base at Incirlik for refuelling.

There are also reports that it has been supplying intelligence.

Its participation could help the US rebut allegations that it is engaged in a war against Islam.

Afghanistan's anti-Taleban Northern Alliance said last week that it favoured a force comprising moderate Muslim nations including Turkey, Jordan and Egypt.

A proposal has been floated for Turkey to contribute most, if not all, of the troops to a post-Taleban UN peacekeeping force which might help prop up a transitional government.

Public ambivalence

UN officials are reported to have dismissed this idea, but Turkey is nonetheless reported to be already preparing for some kind of peacekeeping role.

"Turkey favours the participation of its forces in maintaining peace," said Foreign Ministry spokesman, Huseyin Dirioz.

The commander of a Turkish peacekeeping unit recently visited the US central command headquarters in Tampa, Florida.

Turkish troops have already taken part in international peacekeeping missions in Kosovo and Bosnia - both with large Muslim populations. Other reports say that Turkey could send two battalions of special forces at short notice, though the US has not made any formal requests for Turkish military support.

Last week the parliament approved the deployment of troops to join the strikes on Afghanistan, and also gave permission for foreign troops to be deployed in Turkey.

Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit told the parliament that Turkey had long had contacts with Afghan opposition groups, especially the forces of General Rashid Dostum, and that it could help build them into an effective fighting force.

Observers have suggested, however, that the country's close ties with Dostum could complicate its relations with other opposition factions.

Turkey's firm support for a military response in Afghanistan does not extend to strikes against other states, such as Iraq, which some US officials have advocated.

And despite the government's pro-US position, opinion polls suggest that Turkish people are against Turkish involvement in military action against Afghanistan or against any of Turkey's Muslim neighbours.

3. - Financial Times - "Turkey: Genuine Reform Has Not Happened Yet":

by Jonathan Sugden

Sir, Your newspaper suggested that Human Rights Watch had not fully appreciated the momentousness of Turkey's recent constitutional changes ("Turkey approves reforms to ease curbs on human rights", October 4). Human Rights Watch will loudly welcome genuine reform in Turkey whenever it happens - but it has not happened yet.

The recent constitutional package leaves police, prosecutors and courts with more than enough tools to continue imprisoning writers for expressing their non-violent opinions. The death penalty was left in place and it is unlikely that we shall see an end to the daily reports of ill-treatment and torture in police custody, because the constitutional changes neglected the most important safeguard: access to legal counsel. Under the new constitutional provisions, any anti-state activity (rather than opinion) remains prohibited.

Events in the 48 hours after the constitutional changes were passed showed that the term "activities" will be given the widest possible interpretation: a journalist was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment and a magazine was shut down; a book by a Kurdish writer was banned; a local Kurdish politician was detained; trade unionists were indicted for preparing invitations to a meeting in the Turkish and Kurdish languages; and Turkish Human Rights Association members were detained while making a public call for the release of Yvonne Ridley, the British journalist, from Afghanistan.

You suggest that these changes were designed "to help Turkey meet the European Union's political criteria". In fact, they were meant to cover the embarrassment of a government that has wasted another year of its European Union candidacy without fulfilling its commitments on human rights and democracy.

Jonathan Sugden is the researcher for Turkey at Human Rights Watch.

4. - Turkish Foreign Policy Institute - "Accession of Cyprus to EU and its implications for Turkish foreign and Domestic Policies":

Seyfi TASHAN / 2001 September

The traditional European policy towards Turkey and Greece, since the end of the First World War was a policy of equi-distance or a policy of balanced approach. Although American policy was influenced to certain degree by the weight of the Greek ethnic influence mainly in the US Congress and caused major frictions in 1964, 1973 and 1975, these were short-lived and Turkey's strategic importance was an important factor for re-establishing a balanced relationship. Europe was at least sympathetic to the sufferings of the Turkish community in Cyprus and Britain as the most interested European power in the affairs of Cyprus was not only instrumental in the establishment of 1959-60 treaties that created the Republic of Cyprus as a functional federation between Turkish and Greek Communities in the island. Nevertheless, when Turks were driven into ghettos as a result of the coup d'etat lead by the President of the Republic Makarios there were no protests from any European country. Europe was gradually changing its policy of equi-distance. When ultimately Turkey had to intervene in the island, because of the failure of the UK to fulfill its obligation under the Treaty of Guarantee for joint intervention, the European countries completely abandoned the policy of balance. Greece was pushed into membership of the European Economy Community in 1981 and this date coincided with the de facto freezing of the association relations between Turkey and the European Union.

The Turkish application for full membership in 1987 and the continued economic and political eventually led EU to de-freeze its relations with Turkey and open the way for the customs union which supposedly was the last phase for the consideration of Turkey's application for full membership. In order to accept the conclusion of the agreement for the customs union Greece made the beginning of accession negotiations with Cyprus, to be represented only by the Greek Administration a pre-condition. The situation became worse at the Helsinki summit in December 1999, where EU reversed its 1997 decision and changed the Turkish position vis-à-vis EU from 'eligibility' to 'candidacy' with no date for the beginning of accession negotiations unlike all other candidate states. The price demanded and obtained by Greece was that negotiations with Cyprus would continue and if there was no solution to the conflict in the island EU could accept the present Greek government as a full member. It is a well known fact that Greece threatens EU with blocking the enlargement process if Cyprus is not included among the first group of countries to become members. In effect EU has accepted this Greek demand with the some face saving reservations.

Most European countries are adamant for succumbing to Greek demands which would deal a heavy blow to the relations with Turkey, and they are in favor of delaying the admission of Cyprus until a settlement is reached by the two communities in the island. A clear attitude to be adopted by the EU in this direction would have been most desirable and legally and morally correct one; because in the first place the Cyprus Republic created on the basis of treaties signed by Turkey, Greece, UK and the two communities in the island was a government shared by both Greeks and Turks. The national interests of Turkey, Greece and UK in the island were protected by the same set of treaties. The treaties provided that Cyprus could not enter into an international organization where both Greece and Turkey were not members. The Greek campaign that continued as from 1961 to this day to get rid of their Turkish partners in the island, by violence and international intrigue achieved some success in obtaining the only-Greek Administration in the island as the legitimate government of Cyprus by the international community, that ignored the fact that Cyprus Government in international law should be government of two communities. The Turkish side had no choice but set up its own Government. It is incumbent on EU, not to forget or ignore the fact that if they deal with only one side of the island on behalf of the entire island they would only be supporting the illegal Greek usurpation to power. Furthermore, after deciding an announcing that they can negotiate with Greek administration for the accession of Cyprus they have dealt a death blow to the chances of a successful outcome of the negotiations between the two communities in the island. The only remedy can be a clear declaration by EU supporting the efforts of the Secretary General and specifically his declaration made on September 12, 2000 where he stated:

"I have concluded that the equal status of the parties must and should be recognized explicitly in the comprehensive settlement which will embody the results of the detailed negotiations required to translate this concept into clear and practical provisions". The declaration should further emphasize that as and when a settlement is reached on the basis of the UN Secretary General's conclusions there would be no Cypriot accession to EU. Only such a statement would convince the Greek Cypriots to negotiate with Turkish Cypriots on the basis of equality to establish a united Cypriot state based on the basis of equal status of both parties. In order to facilitate such a solution the Turkish side has already proposed the formation of a confederation in Cyprus, taking into consideration the Secretary General's 12 September proposals as a basis.

The presence of Greece in EU as the main advocate of Greek Cypriots would make the adoption of such a policy by EU extremely difficult if not impossible. Since the Turkish side would not agree to a solution that would disrupt their equal status with the Greeks (as Turks run their independent state), the present policy of EU with some Greek blackmail might indeed lead to the admission of Greek side into EU as the legitimate state of Cyprus which also includes the Turkish section.

EU leaders before taking such a step must consider the possible impact of such step on Turkey's foreign and domestic policies when "they will take all relevant factors into consideration" as they promised in Helsinki should negotiations under UN auspices fail. It is not difficult to foresee that the Greek side would continue to refuse to accept the principle of "equal status" with the Turks so long as they have the hope that they will enter into EU as the Government of entire Cyprus and that they will be able to use all EU instruments to bear pressure on Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots to accept a minority status in the island. Since 1955 the resistance to Greek aspirations to be the sole owners of the island of Cyprus has become an issue of vital national cause both for Turkish Community in the island and for the Turks on general one should not expect Turks to give up their legitimate demands for equal status. Therefore, there can only be slight optimism concerning the outcome of the talks under UN auspices. The present trend in the European Parliament is ominous since it assumes, in its recent decision on enlargement, the accession of Cypriot Greek Government as the Government of Cyprus as a given fact and makes threats against Turkey. The simplest interpretation of the EP attitude is that they have allied themselves with the Greeks to have Cypriot Greeks as an EU member State. The Commission and the Council seem to be slightly more cautious but the terms of Helsinki decision need no further clarification.

Certainly, if the policy adopted by EU results in the admission of Southern Cyprus into EU such a development is bound to have very strong reaction of Turkey with deep impacts on Turkish domestic and foreign policies. Although such a step has not yet been taken by the EU the probability and the existence of framework would oblige us to consider what these impacts could be.

While Turkey needs further reforms in its social and political systems in order to enhance its democratic structures in order to become a modern nation and that these reforms are already in progress, the objective of EU membership has been a significant incentive for carrying out these reforms. The admission of Greek Cypriots alone as representing entire Cyprus will increase the objections of extreme right and left to future EU membership and will sharply reduce the zest of pro-European political center, that will be accused of following an integration policy with the European Union in spite of Europe; because of the fact that Turkey's EU membership will only be mirage due to the existence of two Greek states in the EU as they will demand a political price in Cyprus and the Aegean that Turkey cannot pay for their support.

This will no doubt increase polarity in Turkish domestic politics and reform attempts may be strongly resisted. The eventual strengthening of extreme parties and possibly ethnic elements may disrupt the social order of the country. These domestic disputes will find, as they have done in past, an echo in those European countries where 3.5 million Turkish citizens with Turkish or regional passports, in turn unfavorably impacting the social order of these countries.

Some of our neighbors who have irredentist aspirations on Turkey and the fundamentalist countries who aspire to win Turkey over to their religious camp will be encouraged.

Turkey may have to react and greater military involvement may not be excluded.

Furthermore, Turkey may have to stop political dialogue with EU on political and security issues, as it was the case after Luxembourg conference in 1997, this time even on soft security issues.

Turkey in its regional policies may eventually pay lesser attention to European interests, and seek greater cooperation with US and/or Russia if the price of such enhancement will not be exorbitant.

Last but not least will be the future of Northern Cyprus; the possible and probable Turkish reaction both in the island and in Turkey were already declared by the Governments and parliaments of both countries-that is increased rapprochement and integration between Turkey and TRNC, even at the cost of alienating Western Europe.

It may be argued that Turkey cannot economically afford such an alienation from Europe. But let us remember the history of Turkey and remember eras where Turkey and Europe were at odds quite often.

What I have written above may be considered and put aside as bluff or blackmail. I sincerely believe that the Cyprus issue has been such a national cause where rationality that is sine qua non of a successful polity may be put aside and Turkish reactive policies may exceed those usually considered appropriate, contrary to what many observers of Turkey may estimate.

5. - Kurdish Observer - "The way to solution is open":

"The utter confusion to be experienced in the Middle East will open the way to solution for Kurds. The opportunities for this have arousen. Intervention will develop them more. The rest is dependent on the Kurds. If political, military and diplomatic activities are done, the Kurds may have a place in the re-arranged Middle East."

SEVIN YETKIN

Osman Ocalan, member of PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party) Council of Leaders, replied our questions about the consequences in Turkey and Kurdistan in case that the war in Afghanistan spreads to the Middle East.

There is an expectation that USA will attack on the Middle East after Afghanistan. How do you consider it?

First of all we must state that the existing problem is not limited with a certain country. With '90s the system dominating the world have begun to be destroyed. The world system which existed in a balance between socialist and capitalist systems has faced a grave cavity with the socialist system being turned over and capitalist system has not solved the problems in the Middle East which is the most critical region. We know that neither problems in Iraq nor Palestinian and Kurdish problems have not been solved. Demand of the peoples in the other countries in the region for democracy has not been met. This fact has an important role on the Afghanistan problem. Now overcoming of the existing situation in the Middle East is now on the agenda. Continuing the existing situation is in the interest of neither international forces nor the peoples in the region. USA and its allies should make new attempts in the Middle East. But they have not executed them due to various reasons. But the opportunity offered by the attacks in September 11 was created for the operatation. The war which has begun in Afghanistan will spread to the Middle East. It is possible that USA will attack on Iraq and Iran. It is of great importance for the capitalist system to re-arrange these two areas urgently in order for it to continue its own existence. And for this it seems that it is an overwhelming possibility that war will include Iraq. It is dependent on the consequences in Afghanistan. If they get certain gains in Afghanistan, there will be an attack on Iraq in the near future.

How do you consider the relations and conflicts between the regimes in the region and intervening forces in the light of the latest developments?

In general the regimes in the region consider such an intervention not suitable for their interests. And in special there is the problem as far as approaches to the Kurdish problem. Turkey is trying to prevent the Kurds from gaining a statue arising from the operation on Iraq. Because of both countries in the region and the Kurdish problem Turkey's attempt to prevent such an operation will come to a certain point. But then it will have no affect. Nevertheless the Kurdish problem may not be solved at the first stage of the operation. The first stage will be overthrowing of the existing regime and replace it with another one. At the second stage, granting a statue to Kurds will gain importance. Therefore the developments are of a vital importance for Kurds. Operation on Iraq will be complicated because of the Kurdish problem. From time to time allied forces conflict with each other. In spite of everything we can say that intervention on Iraq and then other countries in the region is unavoidable.

And there is a fact that Turkey deploys troops to South Kurdistan…

We know what Turkey attempts to do in South from its policies it has been pursuing for a long period. The basic point in the approach of Turkey to Iraq is that the Kurdish problem is not solved. Turkey pursues a policy "The new regime should not grant a statue to Kurds". Turkey has never approached aiming to solve the problem. Therefore it has played an important role on the prolongation of the Iraq problem. And it wish to continue its policy at the new period. However the developments are forcible. No-solution-statue cannot be accepted any more. Neither international forces nor the peoples living in Iraq accept it. Everybody want to find a certain solution.

In case that Turkey insists on its traditional policies…

Yes, we know that Turkey has grave problems with European Union on the matter. Turkey, not being able to assume a flexible stance, may risk the success of the policies of USA. We can say that Turkey will not be able to insist on its traditional policies in case that the war spreads to the Middle East. It should accept a certain solution. It can limit the solution but it should accept it. If it does not, it may be excluded. Then it may suffer loss. And USA and other international forces will conflict with Turkey, but it will not assume an armed conflict but pressures and various sanctions. The Turkish regime cannot resist while experiencing grave problems and will say yes to a solution. Turkey may prevent a Kurdish state in South Kurdistan but at least it will accept a statue for Kurds. Another aspect is that Turcomans forming a limited part of the population may gain some rights. There can be no other development more than that.

If that's so, then how will the formations regarding the future of the Kurds develop?

The existing system is perhaps the system which is the most contrary to Kurds than anybody. Therefore overcoming the existing situation will bring more gain to Kurds than anybody. Kurds may have a place within this new system. But for this there should be serious efforts. If political, military and diplomatic activities are done, the Kurds may have a place in the re-arranged Middle East. The rest is dependent on the Kurds. If Kurds do not conflict with each other, continue their political struggle with the support of masses, and display military initiative if needed, we can say that the next years will witness positive developments within the all parts of Kurdistan. It is even possible to start a process for solution, by making Turkey to see the real situation. The utter confusion to be experienced in the Middle East will open the way to solution for Kurds.

Finally, what can you say as far as the place of your party in all these developments is concerned?

The only party which has made all preparations for this is PKK. We know that PKK has prepared itself for a solution for the last three years. PKK has an basic role in producing a solution within the new process by not conflicting and making rather political and diplomatic efforts. It plays a strategic role. The solution mostly needs the effort of PKK. And for this we can say that PKK is ready. If KPD and PUK in South in special do not play an obstructing role, PKK will succeed to make positive developments towards the solution in all parts of Kurdistan. The developments will be positive. The Kurdish people has nothing to lose but has everything to be gained from the utter confusion in the Middle East. We hope that Kurdish problem is solved as soon as possible.

6. - Turkish Daily News - "Verheugen: '11 Sept. strengthened Turkey-EU ties':

Speaking at the foundation meeting of the Europe-Turkey Foundation, EU Commissioner for Enlargement Gunther Verheugen said that following the terrorist attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, Turkey-Europe ties have become stronger and their mutual needs have increased, the Anatolia news agency reported yesterday. In his speech, Verheugen said they supported the reforms that had been implemented in Turkey together with the political steps that had been taken in Parliament and that these all pleased Europe. He gave the message that these positive developments would be reflected in the progress report to be published next month. He said that Turkey had made it quite clear in its National Program what it was going to do on the road to EU accession. Emphasizing the important the EU gave to the practical application of reforms, Verheugen said the EU was well aware of its financial responsibilities.

Touching on the importance of Turkey's support of a political solution on Cyprus, Verheugen said getting a solution arrived at was a matter of "political courage". He added that a solution on Cyprus would make Turkey-Eu relations easier.

Verheugen expressed their wish that the ESDP problems be resolved at the Laeken Summit to be held at the end of the year. He said they understood Turkey's concerns but did believe a solution was possible.

On the subject of the terrorist attacks on the United States, Verheugen said they had increased Turkey and the EU's need for each other and said that the EU had always been Turkey's goal. He said that Turkey being in the EU would prove there was no such thing as a clash of civilizations. He said Turkey's strategic important was obvious but that relations should not be boiled down to simply this and noted that Turkey was a young nation that carried European cultural and historical values.