26 October 2001

1. "Turkey has way to go on human rights - Euro Parliament", despite "real advances," Turkey has a long road ahead before meeting European Union criteria on human rights, needed to begin negotiations for joining the EU, European Parliament heard Thursday.

2. "Baghdad blasts Turkish "invasion" of Kurdish northern enclave", Baghdad has complained to the UN about an incursion by the Turkish army into Kurdish-held northern, Iraq which began earlier this month, reserving the right to "self-defense," a statement saud Thursday.

3. "Turkey's Political Pot Boils, With Elections Still Three Years Away", with an Ankara court's decision in June to ban Turkey's main opposition party, there was little let up in the political heat during August, with a furious round of new party building taking place.

4. "Turkey calls for Caucasus security pact", Turkey's Foreign Minister Ismail Cem called Thursday for a security pact in the southern Caucasus, as the linchpin region gains importance as a strategic conduit for Caspian oil and gas.

5. "Look Mummy, the king is naked", it is time to show to all forces clearly that order and stability cannot be established without Kurds.

6. "Rattler rattle", columnist Oktay Eksi comments on the preliminary draft of the EU on Turco-European relations.

1. - AFP - "Turkey has way to go on human rights - Euro Parliament":

STRASBOURG

Despite "real advances," Turkey has a long road ahead before meeting European Union criteria on human rights, needed to begin negotiations for joining the EU, European Parliament heard Thursday.

Euro-deputies heard a report noting "uncontestable progress" on Turkey's road toward democratic reform, another requirement for membership negotiations, but which at the same time stressed the "magnitude of the reforms that remain to be realized in the human rights field."

The report approved by parliament hailed the reforms in which Turkey is currently engaged, notably in its penal code, anti-terrorist law and political freedoms, but noted that "the result is not up to today's democratic standards."

"Torture and the degrading treatment of prisoners continues to be frequent, freedom of expression is still abnormally restricted, and several thousand people are today incarcerated for offenses which we would consider differences of opinion," said the report. "The impression remains that the signs of opening sometimes expressed by Turkish government authorities can be overruled by the military, which continues to wield abnormally strong power in Turkish political affairs," it added.

Turkey's candidacy for membership in the EU is also hindered by the fact that "the principle of superiority of international law, or, eventually, European law, has been expressly set aside" by Ankara. On the economic side, parliament expressed concern over the possible "serious consequences" of the cost reforms, and called on the European Commission to "rapidly" accord Turkey financial assistance to help carry them out.

Such aid, it stipulated, should be conditioned on its use for political development and democratization, said the report. "We will make our judgement of the facts," it said, adding that the coming year "will be a crucial test of the real willingness of Turkish leaders" to move closer to the European Union. The Cyprus question will pose such a test, it said, adding that Ankara will have to settle its standoff with Greece by the fall of next year, the date set by the EU to wrap up Cyprus' negotiations for its own membership.

The Mediterranean island has been divided since 1974, when Turkey occupied its northern third in reponse to an Athens-engineered military coup in Nicosia seeking to unite Cyprus with Greece. At last year's Helsinki summit, Turkey was according the status of a candidate country, but actual membership negotiations cannot begin until it meets a list of requirements to meet EU standards of democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the Cypriot question.

2. - AFP - "Baghdad blasts Turkish "invasion" of Kurdish northern enclave":

BAGHDAD

Baghdad has complained to the UN about an incursion by the Turkish army into Kurdish-held northern, Iraq which began earlier this month, reserving the right to "self-defense," a statement saud Thursday. Turkey "is asked to cease its aggression and to withdraw its invasion troops without delay," said Iraq's representative to the United Nations, Mohammad al-Duri, in a message to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Duri said Turkish troops, backed by about 30 tanks, had rolled into northern Iraq in several phases since October 5. "They are now carrying out fortification works in order to maintain their new invasion" of the region, he said.

Duri denounced such "violation of Iraqi sovereignty" and called on the United Nations to "assume its responsibilities" in acting to "put an immediate end to the Turkish military aggression." Baghdad "reserves the right to self-defense," he warned.

The Turkish army frequently launches operations into neighboring northern Iraq against rebels of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), who are believed to have taken shelter there since the 1991 Gulf War. Western-protected northern Iraq, which has been outside Baghdad's control since the Gulf War, is controlled by two main Kurdish factions. The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) of Masoud Barzani controls an area along the Turkish border, while Jalal Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) administers a patch of land close to the Iranian border.

3. - Washington Post - "Turkey's Political Pot Boils, With Elections Still Three Years Away":

By Jon Gorvett

With an Ankara court's decision in June to ban Turkey's main opposition party, there was little let up in the political heat during August, with a furious round of new party building taking place. Ironically, however, the curious situation has emerged in which, although there are more political groupings than ever, far fewer Turks today seem interested in voting for any of them.

Perhaps the most unpopular grouping of all is the country's three-party ruling coalition-comprising veteran Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit's Democratic Left Party (DSP), Deputy Prime Minister Devlet Bahceli's far-right National Action Party (MHP), and Deputy Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz's center-right Motherland Party (ANAP). According to a recent survey by the polling company ANAR, all three put together would garner less than the 10 percent national threshold of votes necessary to qualify for representation in parliament.

Nor does the opposition fare much better. Tansu Ciller's True Path Party has less than 5 percent support, while Recai Kutan's new pro-Islamist Saadet Party has even less than that. Hardly satisfactory results for opposition parties facing such an obviously unpopular government, now two and a half years in office.

There are, however, two groups in the ANAR poll that look more like winners in any future election. One consists of people who would "vote for none of the above" (around 20 percent), and the other of those who would vote for Tayyip Erdogan's new Ak Party-the "White" Party-which was officially launched in mid-August. The Ak Party is made up largely of former Virtue Party deputies-the same pro-Islamist party led by Kutan that the courts shut down in June. Erdogan himself was once mayor of Istanbul, then banned from politics for two years following a speech he had made some years earlier in which he had said the "mosques are our barracks, the minarets are our bayonets." (Never mind that he was quoting from a poem by Ziya Gokalp, one of the founding fathers of Turkish nationalism who routinely is studied in the nation's schools.) Erdogan was found guilty of advocating shariah law and banned by Turkey's fiercely secular courts. Now he's back, however, and riding a wave of popularity that seems to be around 30 percent in most polls. This would be enough to give the Ak Party a pretty hefty single-party majority were an election held tomorrow.

Which is, of course, one major reason why any balloting now is highly unlikely. Ecevit's mandate runs to 2004, giving him no reason to contemplate a new vote, while the fragile financial markets and Turkey's foreign lenders-notably the IMF-would take a dim view of the instability an election would generate. Meanwhile, the fact that none of the ruling parties is doing well in the polls provides a further incentive for them to cling together in office. It is unlikely that any of the three would leave the coalition.

This poses a problem particularly for the far-right MHP, which has been presenting itself as the defender of Turkey's national interests against the IMF and the international markets. It already has lost ministers in the tussle over telecommunications privatization and tobacco sector liberalization, and may well lose more, as the introduction of the free market the IMF is pushing hits the MHP's voting base particularly hard. This is located in the Anatolian heartlands, with its small businesses and farmers. The squeeze is therefore on the MHP, which is also helping Erdogan's "reformists." They, in their earlier incarnations as Virtue and before that as Welfare (the pro-Islamist party banned in 1998 that then gave birth to Virtue), also had taken votes from the rural and small business communities.

Erdogan also seems to be benefitting from the so-called "volatility factor." This can be summed up as representing the huge number of Turkish voters who switch from one party to another at election time-often across left-right boundaries as well as secular-religious ones. They can deliver a thumping 20 to 25 percent swing, usually to a party that seems untainted by government. Welfare gained a massive swing in 1995, as did the MHP in 1999. An early election might deliver much the same swing vote to the Ak Party.

Yet how new is the Ak Party? While it has been presenting itself in the country's media as a force for change, determined to shake up the status quo, its members seem strangely at odds with such a radical new image. Meral Aksener, a former ANAP deputy who, just after Virtue was banned, joined the Ak Party-in what was a dramatic coup for them-subsequently resigned from their ranks, charging that Erdogan "still held to the National View." Aksener was referring to the ideology of Turkey's pro-Islamist movement as outlined by its founder, Necmettin Erbakan, which toes a far harder line than anything Erdogan publicly espouses.

The other side, however, claimed that in fact Aksener had resigned because the Ak Party would not give a position to Mehmet Agar, a former DYP minister who was widely held to be involved in the Susurluk incident, a 1996 case which appeared to provide strong evidence of links between the Turkish state and organized crime. Just how much of a new politician Agar could be said to be is a big question. On economic policy, the Ak Party seems to employ a great deal of nationalist rhetoric against the IMF policy. They have no suggestions, however, as to how the country could be pulled out of its current crisis on its own. This is a major weakness when financial policy is headline news.

Yet the Ak Party does have other factors working for it-one of which is its opponents' terrible weakness. While two new parties have arisen from the ashes of Virtue, the center-left also has been splitting, with a "new" party about to be formed by veteran politician Erdal Inonu. This would effectively be a de-merging of the center-left after the 1995 joining together of Murat Karayalcin's Social Democratic People's Party (SHP) and Deniz Baykal's Republican People's Party (CHP). Inonu's group would pull away those CHP members disillusioned by Baykal and effectively re-form the SHP, making three center-left parties when Ecevit's DSP is added in.

Meanwhile, on the center right, Yilmaz's ANAP also is having trouble with "splitters." Former Interior Minister Saddetin Tantan-who was fired by Yilmaz after conducting criminal investigations into a number of ANAP ministers-has announced his wish to form a new party. At the same time, the ANAP party congress in early August saw a number of challenges to Yilmaz' leadership-all beaten off, but indicative of dissent within the ranks.

The likelihood of more parties being formed is, therefore, high. This also illustrates a trend many commentators have observed in Turkish political parties: that an absence of internal democracy repeatedly leads to splintering, as central party leaderships make it well nigh impossible for any kind of internal renewal. Evidence of this is Sema Piskinsut's challenge to Ecevit's leadership of the DSP back in May. She announced herself as a candidate for the leadership, but was forbidden from addressing the party congress. Her son, who had accompanied her, was beaten up. Similarly, Lutfullah Kayalar, a challenger to Yilmaz, arrived at the ANAP congress to find his supporters forbidden entrance and no seat provided him by the congress organizers. A year earlier, Virtue had seen a strong internal challenge from leading "reformist" Abdullah Gul. Beaten in the ballot against Recai Kutan, the "reformists"-the forerunners of the Ak Party-then were excluded completely from the party executive, leading to a further party split.

Such machinations illustrate the fact that many of Turkey's parties are formed as the result of internal feuds, rather than of a popular mass movement in society at large. With this disconnection between the groupings listed on the ballot and the grievances and aspirations of Turks, it is little wonder that the national parties are so unpopular. A thorough overhaul, however, seems a gargantuan task. In the meantime, the suspicion is that the new bosses of Turkey's parties may be much the same as the old ones.

4. - Reuters - "Turkey calls for Caucasus security pact":

BRUSSELS / by Robert MacPherson

Turkey's Foreign Minister Ismail Cem called Thursday for a security pact in the southern Caucasus, as the linchpin region gains importance as a strategic conduit for Caspian oil and gas. Cem's proposal, at a seminar in Brussels on Caspian security, came amid tension between Tbilisi and Moscow over Georgia's breakaway province of Abkahzia, and against the backdrop of US-led air strikes on Afghanistan.

"I don't think we have the luxury to sit back and wait for a positive environment to emerge by itself" in the southern Caucasus before starting to put a security pact in place, Cem said. Indeed, he argued, the process itself might help cool the flames in such hotspots as Abkhazia, the Georgian province of South Ossetia and, in Azerbaijan, the mainly ethnic Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. "Instead of waiting for an environment free of problems in order to establish a pact, such a pact should be initiated to contribute to the elimination of such problems," he said.

Georgia last Friday protested what it called "increasingly frequent" violations of its airspace by Russian aircraft, after several weeks of clashes between Abkhaz separatists and guerrillas allegedly back by Tbilisi. Armenia and Azerbaijan, meanwhile, have yet to resolve differences over Nagorno-Karabakh, though US envoy Rudolf Perina said Wednesday the global fall-out from the September 11 attacks offered chances to find a solution.

Cem recalled that Turkey, NATO's eastern-most member country and a candidate to join the European Union, is in the process of upgrading existing security arrangements with Georgia and Azerbaijan. But he said it was up to Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to decide between
themselves "how to proceed" towards a security pact. "The Caucasus should not be treated as a backyard of any neighboring country," he said.

Part of the Soviet Union until 10 years ago, the southern Caucasus -- always critical in geopolitical terms -- have taken on fresh importance with the discovery of large oil and gas deposits in the Caspian Sea. Turkey is eager for those resources to be secure, both for its own growing energy needs and for export to the West along pipelines that would cut through the southern Caucasus. Cem renewed a call he made in Baku on Sunday for a joint conference by the European Union and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to combat suggestions that a clash of civilizations is unfolding as the United States targets Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

"The 'US against Islam' idea is gaining ground in the Islamic world, I have to admit. Of course that is totally wrong," said Cem, whose country is allied with President George W. Bush's war against terrorism. "I believe it is our duty to fight against such exhortations and to fight against being unfair to a country which has done so much in the past for Muslim populations (in Bosnia and Kosovo) that were in difficulty," he said.

5. - Kurdish Observer - "Look Mummy, the king is naked":

"It is time to show to all forces clearly that order and stability cannot be established without Kurds. It is equally important that Kurds should not deceive themselves with statements by American officials and politicians. It should not be kept in mind that although the fact that Kurds have overlooked the violation of their rights has caused a moral solution as far as promises they have given to Southern Kurds are concerned, moral policy is not exercised in the Middle East."

NURDOGAN AYDOGAN

Expressing his views on the attack on USA, the war in Afghanistan and repercussions of it on the Middle East and developments in South Kurdistan, Mustafa Karasu, member of PKK Council of Leaders, stated that Turkish state should see the realities.

Land and air attacks against Afghanistan continue. Did USA have to launch such an operation?

After attacks on September 11, it was certain that USA would absolutely attack against somewhere. The tough boy who has beaten in front of his house should beat someone in order to gain his prestige again. After this incident everybody believes that nothing will continue as the old. Although they all agree that there will be a change there are various opinions on how the transformation will be. The majority claimed that there would be more conflicts and human rights would be limited. And for us there will be important changes in the world. But we also thought that the humanity would enter into a more democratic and more just process with the lessons derived from the attacks and experiences gained by humanity. We stated that although there might be violence for a short period, there might also positive developments in the long run. We still preserve this opinion.

How do you consider the attacks on Afghanistan, is the preparation period is enough?

The first reaction of USA was reactionary. Of course neither USA nor the world expected such an incident. There was no scenario similar to this incident. USA could not avoid from a retaliation. And after a month it attacked on Afghanistan. It was called the 3. World War. But it is a war which was prepared only within a month. In fact it is a war which was not studied meticulously and did not have an open plan. Now the goal is to intimidate the other side by air attacks and so to prepare military and political plans accordingly. Such an approach shows the weakness of the attack.

Is the reason of it the instability of political support?

It is difficult to adopt the political conditions to a new situation within a month. Especially in a region like the Middle East and Afghanistan you cannot immediately form a political plan you like. The situation of Pakistan, Iran and Middle Asia states show this clearly. In such regions when you correct a place of a stone, other stones will be displaced. Even the overthrowing of Taliban will not mean to get a favourable result. We know from our experiences that air attacks do not damage much. Only they are added by a land operation it may bring results.

But it is impossible for Taliban to survive for a long period against USA and England.

The reason of the weakness of Taliban regime is that it is not supported by any other state. We cannot talk about the support it has gained in the war against Russia. On the other hand its order is reactionary and is not inclined to even reforms. Therefore we can say it will be overthrown in the end. But we should not let us to be mislead. There is ideological and massive forces in Pakistan to support Taliban, and it increases the resistance of Taliban. In case that the war is prolonged, Taliban, increasing the support of the Islamic community, may resist to a land operation by a guerrilla war. The war cannot be determined by the military power of US or faith of Taliban. It is determined by the capacity of USA to continue its alliances and its approaches to the other problems in the Middle East. US has never said that its goal is to overthrow the Taliban regime. Pakistan wants a government in which moderate members of Taliban exist. The Northern Alliance does not meet the political combinations of USA completely.

After Afghanistan now an attack on Iraq is being debated. The Ankara government particularly is uncomfortable.

Turkey's basic anxiety has been always whether Kurds benefit from the gaps. The problem is not whether US attack on Iraq or not. If Turkey's anxiety is get rid of completely, Turkey will be on the fore front of the attacks against Iraq. In fact its all effort is to make its own policies come to terms with the policies of USA for the region. America knows that there will be no stability in the region unless Kurds are satisfied at a certain degree. The struggle of Kurds in all parts of Kurdistan and a general development arousen from it has changed the existing situation into an independent power rather than to be protected by a power. And in this our struggle is determining. Even when KPD and PUK conflict with us, they continue their existence under the umbrella of the general struggle developed by us and depending on us. It is of importance to see this reality. Those who do not see it are mislead.

Then you say the developments are related with PKK.

The fact that Turkey has placed itself on the side of USA unconditionally is related with possible developments with PKK and South Kurdistan. The only explanation of being more devoted to the cause than USA can be this. The statement said by Ecevit "Whatever USA says is true" is the consequence of this fact. Turkey aims at getting more support against PKK and preserving its interests in case of an operation against Iraq. USA has promised Turkey that borders of Iraq would be preserved but did not give a clear answer on the inner order in Iraq and the place of Kurds within it. USA prefers a federal administration for Kurds.

If that's so, why does it bothers Turkey?

Turkey thinks that it will suffer loss from the developments. Deployment of troops to the South Kurdistan is a blackmail. Therefore it gives a message to USA and makes a threat to the Southern forces. Occupation of South by Turkey is one of the possibilities. Even it does not change it into a lasting occupation, it may be a de facto situation. It may decrease the reactions of the other forces in the region by saying "I will withdraw later". If Turkey makes an agreement with USA and the Southern forces, it will aim to liquidate PKK altogether. It can be said that Turkey prepares itself for various possibilities.

Some say there will a change in Iraq. Is it possible and how do the Kurds place themselves?

It is possible. But the place of Kurds within it depends on the level of organization and unity. It is time to show to all forces clearly that order and stability cannot be established without Kurds. It is equally important that Kurds should not deceive themselves with statements by American officials and politicians. It should not be kept in mind that although the fact that Kurds have overlooked the violation of their rights has caused a moral solution as far as promises they have given to Southern Kurds are concerned, moral policy is not exercised in the Middle East.

What will be the stance of PKK? Which method will be followed as far as the relations with the other Kurdish organizations are concerned?

Our Part has always called for unity and National Conference. Nobody has yet replied it. We have not witnessed a call by KPD and PUK for a conference even once. On the contrary they have always stated that they see PKK as dangerous when they visit Ankara. It seems that the Southern forces are not uncomfortable from the existence of the Turkish army in South.

It is not possible for the Southern organizations to gain a position by using their organizations and power. We see ourselves as being more responsible than the Southern forces. We try to make a federal administration in South Kurdistan be lasting, and if the need be we will attempt to establish it. Our forces are at the same time a force of East and South Kurdistan. The Southern Kurdish people know this fact well.

USA and Great Britain made statements on the establishment of a Palestinian state. What do they aim by such an approach. Is it a beginning of a new system in the Middle East?

We can consider the incidents on September 11 a turning point in the Palestine-Israel problem. It cannot be continued as such and will come gradually to a point of solution. The Clinton administration has tried to solve it, but been unsuccessful as it looked after the interests of Israel. Bush displayed a tendency not to interfere to the foreign problems. But this policy has ended on September 11. The fact that USA talks about a Palestinian state is a step towards a solution. And the Jerusalem problem is of importance here. The solution to the Jerusalem problem will change the policies in the Middle East radically. But unless the Kurdish problem is solved, there can be no new system. The Kurdish problem obstructs the democratisation of the region. On the other hand the main powers in the region such as Turkey, Iran and Arabians have an influence on the policies in the Middle East. Therefore if there is to be a new system in the Middle East, the Kurdish problem should be solved.

Turkey has launched an intensive diplomacy against PKK. What profits will it gain? What will be your stance against it?

The campaign of Turkey to make the other states declare PKK as a terrorist organizations is related with its own lack of sufficient political qualifications. There is a dead end as far as the Kurdish problem is concerned.

Turkey say "Be anti-democratic like me and repress Kurds." Do not forget, it does not say "Let's go and fight Kurds." If it says, it will get a negative reply. Turkey attacks against your newspaper and other institutions which try to be voice of Kurds. But even if Europe wants, it cannot meet the expectations of Turkey. If it meets them, the first consequence will be its death. We do not think that Turkey will be successful. Turkey claims out-of-mode thesis. There is no black money within the Kurdish institutions. It is legitimate.

Our stance against this campaign is clear-cut. It is to invite Turkey to solve the Kurdish problem. Turkey should tolerate the organization of the Kurdish people. It should put the opportunities into good use. The Kurdish problem has taken its all policies captive. To liquidate this problem is of no use. Someone in Turkey should display the courage to say that our policy is not meaningful and logical. Turkey is waiting for someone who say "Look Mummy! The King is naked!"

6. - Hurriyet - "Rattler rattle":

Columnist Oktay Eksi comments on the preliminary draft of the EU on Turco-European relations.

"The contents of the preliminary draft prepared by the European Union bureaucrats regarding the Progress Report which will determine the future of Turco-European relations was reported yesterday. The issue in question is the preliminary draft.

This means that it may go through many changes, some parts of the draft may be erased and new ones may emerge. However, a preliminary draft provides us the opportunity to understand how the people preparing it are viewing the issue. It is inevitable that we react to it when viewed from this point. For example, the report states that Turkey did not specify its economic priorities in the National Programme presented to Brussels seven months ago. It adds that Turkey's discrimination against Cyprus (meaning the Greek Cypriot Administration) was unacceptable.

Furthermore, it goes on to say that the program presented to them was not leading the way for or facilitating developments. We are not citing other remarks made in the draft. However, don't the bureaucrats in Brussels know that when we prepared and presented the National Programme to them, towards end of last March, Turkey was exerting every effort to find additional funds from the IMF and had to say 'yes' to everything the IMF and the World Bank asked for? In such a situation what priority should Turkey have put in the report to satisfy Brussels?

At the time, the national priority was to avoid bankruptcy and it remain so today. The Brussels bureaucrats must be living in another world. They are talking about discrimination towards the ships of a country the Republic of Turkey doesn't even recognize. Is Belgium (or other European countries) permitting planes from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus airlines to land at its airports? Recently, Turkey has amended its Constitution.

It accepted all their requests, including those on tobacco, sugar, arbitration and the telecom sector. Turkey has taken great strides in abolishing the death penalty, and carried out reforms in the execution system including the prisons. Without taking these into consideration, who knows what they hope to achieve with these irascible, negative statements, but it is certain that they have a lot to lose."