1 Mart 2002

1. "The military would have hanged Apo long ago if they wanted to", two years have passed since then and Ocalan's execution has been brought to the agenda once again. Behind this latest round of debates lies the need to obtain a date from the EU as soon as possible. Ocalan's execution would finish off peace.

2. "Turkey plays Europe's waiting game", if membership of the European Union was granted to the longest standing applicant then Turkey would certainly be guaranteed a place. It first made a bid to be an associate of what was then the European Community in 1959. Since then Turkey has seen other countries jump ahead in the queue while its own relationship with Brussels has faltered.

3. "Turkey condemns European resolution on Armenian genocide", Turkey condemned a resolution adopted by the European Parliament on Thursday urging Ankara to acknowledge the killings of Armenians in the final years of the Ottoman empire as genocide. In a statement issued by Turkey's six political parties, lawmakers denounced the resolution as a "conscious denial of historical fact and acceptance of baseless Armenian claims."

4. "European Parliament asks Turkey not to ban HADEP", the European Parliament, on Thursday, approved a draft, entitled human rights issues in Turkey, and has called on Turkey not to ban the People's Democracy Party (HADEP).

5. "CIA team, Kurds met to talk about Hussein, dissidents say", a CIA team visited northern Iraq last month for meetings over three days with Kurdish officials opposed to President Saddam Hussein, U.S.-backed Iraqi dissidents said here Wednesday.

6. "U.S. hopes to broadcast Iraqi opposition's voice", the Bush administration is prepared to finance the construction of a radio transmitter in the Kurdish enclave in Iraq or in neighboring Iran so that the Iraqi opposition can begin broadcasts to encourage opposition to Saddam Hussein, according to State Department officials.

1. - Hurriyet - "The military would have hanged Apo long ago if they wanted to":

Opinion by M. Ali Birand

Some of our politicians are misleading both themselves and the people. They are bargaining for votes, using Ocalan's neck as a chip. But theirs is empty talk. The same debate took place in 2000. At that time the military could have had Apo hanged if it wanted to. However, the military opted for the long-term interests of the country, the climate of peace. Gritting its teeth, it decided against an execution due to domestic and external reasons. What has changed since then? What are we debating now?

Ostensibly, Turkey is debating whether the death penalty should be abolished unconditionally. But behind this debate is a bargaining for votes at the expense of Ocalan.

In principle, all parties agree that the death penalty should be scrapped. It is the Ocalan case that is causing a problem.

If the death penalty were to be abolished altogether unconditionally, Ocalan too would be saved from the gallows. If the death penalty clause were to remain as it is, Ocalan would continue to live under the threat of being executed.

It is this possibility that excites certain parties.

When they say, "First let us hang Ocalan, then we will abolish the death penalty," they are winking at those voters who are sensitized on the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) issue. Over Ocalan's "head," they are vying for being more nationalistic or, to put it more correctly, they are acting as "vote merchants."

Though they know that the opportunity to hang Ocalan was missed in 2000, they keep harping on the execution tune.

They are debating a nonexistent issue, and, due to this petty policy, they are endangering Turkey's efforts to elicit from the European Union a date for the start of the accession talks.

We saw that film in 2000

I want to remind you of what we experienced two years ago.

Ocalan was apprehended and sentenced to death.

The wounds opened by the PKK were still quite fresh. In the eyes of the public, Ocalan was the murderer of thousands of people and should definitely be executed.

Despite all that pressure, the Turkish Armed Forces, the ones that were worst affected by the PKK terrorism, the ones that waged the biggest struggle, the ones that lost most men as martyrs, played a key role in the delaying of the execution. By remaining silent, it made its stance known. If the General Staff had wanted, it could have brought about Ocalan's execution with just a "wink."

The National Intelligence Organization (MIT) clearly took a stance against the execution.

The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which waged a campaign against the PKK all these years, basing the party strategies on that issue, did not resist either. Bahceli withstood all the pressure coming from the party rank and file. If it wanted to it could have incited the people and have Ocalan hanged.

A civil war had been fought for a period of 15 years, spending $75 billion on gunpowder -- expenditures which lie at the base of today's economic crisis -- and 35,000 people died. People wanted peace. Ocalan's execution could have triggered a new "explosion," both in the country and in Europe.

The military, the other security forces of the state, a significant part of the parties, even the most radical columnists of the media, had a joint view, and Ocalan's death sentence was frozen.

Everybody acted with common sense. Despite the justified reaction of the public, they gave priority to tranquillity in the country and to the country's long-term interests, rather than engaging in petty politics.

They did the right thing.

With vote-getting considerations, politicians came to call this "postponement." They used as an excuse the need to wait for the decision of the European Court of Human Rights.

Two years have passed since then and Ocalan's execution has been brought to the agenda once again. Behind this latest round of debates lies the need to obtain a date from the EU as soon as possible.

Some of our politicians are trying to keep on the agenda a "nonexistent" issue or, to put it differently, something that has become all the more difficult to translate into action.

The question that springs to mind is:

What has changed over the past two years so that the issue of Ocalan's execution has been raised once again? Are the realities of that time still valid? Or has the climate changed?

Would domestic peace be plunged into jeopardy?

Today, there is a climate of relative peace in the southeast. The security forces have expanded the scope of their control.

The country has sighed with relief.

Ocalan's execution would finish off this peace.

Obviously one does not have to have access to top secret intelligence report to be able to predict that the southeast would be up in arms, that hundreds of thousands of people would pour into the streets, that demonstrations would be staged, especially in those cities to which our citizens of Kurdish origin have migrated in great numbers, and that this process would not end easily.

The PKK radicals would use that opportunity, something they have been waiting for for quite a long time. They would resume the fighting, though they know that they would not be able to get any results. They would prefer arms to politics.

This possibility would make Ankara very happy, as well as certain circles in the region. With the resumption of the war, the allowances that have been cut down, those big incomes, would come back. The same system would be reestablished.

But that would do Turkey harm.

The war would cause the economy to collapse once again and destroy social peace. Our democratic system which we try to operate despite all its shortcomings, would fail once again. Our efforts to comply with the Copenhagen criteria would fail.

Turkey would, once again, become a country of darkness where fear, suspicion and lies have a field day.

The world would be up in arms

Today's international conditions make it impossible for Turkey to hang Ocalan.

Before everything else, one should remember the two basic conditions put forth by Washington. When it decided that Ocalan should be given to Turkey, the Clinton Administration stipulated that Ocalan should not be killed and that the Kurdish problem should be solved, and obtained a promise to this effect.

Those officials who have closely followed the developments between the time Ocalan was spotted in Kenya by the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the time he was brought into Turkey, know about this fact.

Therefore, Washington would oppose Ocalan's execution before everybody else.

Then Germany would knock on Ankara's door. In Germany, there lives 500,000 of our citizens of Kurdish origin. During Ocalan's capture we all saw the way the streets in Germany were almost set on fire. Aware of the fact that if Ocalan is hanged, all hell would break loose in Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, France and Italy, Germany would spare no effort to stop Turkey. All EU countries would confront Turkey.

Considering especially the European Court of Human Rights decision -- which is already taking shape -- that the execution of Ocalan would amount to a violation of the Convention, one could see all the more clearly what Turkey can or cannot do.

If there is any country that is "winking" at Turkey and saying, "Hand Ocalan," you can believe that they, in fact, have plans to split up Turkey.

Would that be worth it?

Now let us ask ourselves a few questions:

* Despite the current domestic and international conditions, is it still possible for Turkey to drop the decision it made two years ago and hang Ocalan?

* While the problems we would be faced with locally and internationally are all too obvious, would it be more rational to execute Ocalan or to keep him as an inmate on Imrali Island?

* Do we think that those parties who say, "Let us first do the hanging and then abolish the death penalty" do that for the sake of the homeland and in the name of nationalism? Or do we think that they are acting like this for the sake of gaining more votes?

If you think that the enforcement of Ocalan's sentence is no longer feasible under the current conditions, would it not be more rational to abolish the death penalty altogether and obtain a date from the EU for the start of the accession talks?

2. - BBC - "Turkey plays Europe's waiting game":

By Tabitha Morgan

If membership of the European Union was granted to the longest standing applicant then Turkey would certainly be guaranteed a place. It first made a bid to be an associate of what was then the European Community in 1959. Since then Turkey has seen other countries jump ahead in the queue while its own relationship with Brussels has faltered.

The country's ongoing financial crisis appeared to some to put the brakes on Turkey's progress towards Europe. Relations with the United States and the IMF suddenly seemed much more important.

But for those working in the banking sector, Turkey's economic crisis means that membership of the European Union cannot come quickly enough. "We desperately need to attract foreign investment," said one bank worker, Funda Hanoglu.

"Because of the crisis industrialists have stopped investing. By joining Europe we can create a climate where foreign businessmen feel it is safe to bring their money into Turkey."

Uncertainty

Not everybody shares her level of enthusiasm. There is considerable uncertainty across all levels of society as to whether the country's future lies in Europe or whether, as a secular Islamic nation, Turkey should seek to develop alliances elsewhere.

Islamists, nationalists and those on the left all share a degree of scepticism about what membership of the EU would mean for Turkish identity and about Brussels' true intentions towards their country.

Bulent Ecevit has tried to resolve outstanding issues

Many Islamists like Dr Omer Bolat, of the Independent Industrialists and Businessmen's Association, believe that Turks have been focusing on the EU for too long and should broaden their horizons.

"Turkey should try and multiply its relationships with other countries," he says, "particularly the Balkans, Russia, the Islamic world and North Africa.

"These are all places which it has neglected at the expense of its attempts to be a full member of the European Union."

Human rights

One obstacle in the way of Turkey joining the EU is its poor human rights record. Political Islamists in Turkey see Brussels' emphasis on human rights as nothing more than a delaying tactic, concealing a deep-seated anti-Islamic bias at the heart of Christian Europe.

Many Turks can still quote comments made by Jaques Delors when he was EC president in 1989, that Europe was "a product of Christianity, of Roman law and of Greek humanism". These words, they believe, closed the door firmly on their country's European aspirations.

But calls for the government to take a firmer line on human rights abuses do not just come from within Europe itself. Turkish human rights activists have long argued that the widespread use of torture and unlawful detention have effectively disenfranchised the population.

As a result, they say, Turkish citizens are unclear about what it means to fully participate in the democratic process and ill-prepared to deal with the complexities of European politics.

"Hundreds of thousands of people have been tortured physically in Turkey," says Feray Salman of Turkey's Human Rights Foundation.

"The effect of this goes beyond the individual themselves to the families and the society in general. It creates a kind of broken society that can never come together."

Similar fractures at government level between members of the fragile three-way coalition have slowed down the pace of legislative reform - a prerequisite of EU membership.

Death penalty

The far-right Nationalist Action Party (MHP) is deeply sceptical about Europe and bitterly opposed to the introduction of any legislation which it thinks will undermine Turkish sovereignty.

It is staunchly opposed to European demands for the abolition of the death penalty - seeking the execution of PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan for his role in the conflict in the south-east of the country, which cost an estimated 30,000 lives.

The EU's latest annual progress report on Turkey praised the government for its work during a marathon legislative session last September, when the authorities finally succeeded in amending the country's constitution in line with EU norms. But little has subsequently been done to bring the country's legislation into line with the constitutional reforms.

For example the wording of the infamous article 312 - used to stifle free speech and imprison writers and intellectuals who voiced opinions contrary to those of the state, remains vague.

Without any clear definition of what constitutes a crime, judges are left to interpret the law as they see fit - reflecting the prevailing political mood.

According to author and political analyst Dr Cengiz Aktar, Turkey is now at a crossroads.

"It could follow the route of Spain, a former military state that has now become a model of democracy," he says, "or it can become like Iraq, another secular Islamic country, but totally authoritarian, where democracy doesn't really exist."

But the most likely option is that Turkey will continue the internal debate about its identity and continue to keep its place on Europe's waiting list.

3. - AFP - "Turkey condemns European resolution on Armenian genocide":

ANKARA

Turkey condemned a resolution adopted by the European Parliament on Thursday urging Ankara to acknowledge the killings of Armenians in the final years of the Ottoman empire as genocide. In a statement issued by Turkey's six political parties, lawmakers denounced the resolution as a "conscious denial of historical fact and acceptance of baseless Armenian claims."

"History cannot be manipulated through arbitrary judgements," said the statement, read out by deputy parliament speaker Yuksel Yalova. The European parliament resolution, adopted along with a report on the Caucasus, urged Turkey to take steps in line with its desire to integrate with Europe, and recalled its 1987 resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide and urging Ankara to do so as well. Armenia says Turks systematically killed 1.5 million Armenians during the final years of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey categorically rejects the claim of genocide and says thousands of Turks also died in fighting during the last years of the empire.

"The Turkish parliament's response to the arbitrary resolution of the European parliament is historical truths and the truth is on our side," the statement added. The foreign ministry said that such evaluations on past events served only to "distort history unilaterally".

"The resolution and the report are also in contradiction with efforts to develop ties between the European Union and Turkey," a candidate for EU membership since December 1999, it said. The Turkish representative to the Convention on the Future of Europe in Brussels also condemned the resolution. "The European Parliament does not have the mission of making judgements on history," deputy prime minister Mesut Yilmaz said. "We regard the decisions of the European Parliament about the so-called Armenian genocide... totally unacceptable," he said in a statement.

Yerevan's campaign to gain international recognition for the 1915 massacres as genocide is one of the reasons why Turkey refuses to establish diplomatic ties with Armenia. "Turkey has always been for reconciliation," Yilmaz said. "But

reconciliation should not be based on historical lies."

4. - Turkish Daily News - "European Parliament asks Turkey not to ban HADEP":

The European Parliament, on Thursday, approved a draft, entitled human rights issues in Turkey, and has called on Turkey not to ban the People's Democracy Party (HADEP).

"HADEP has been fighting for Kurds to be granted their civil rights, and denies links to the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK), or any other so called terrorist organization," the decision of the European Parliament stated.

There is an ongoing closure case against HADEP at the Constitutional Court, on charges of having organic ties with the outlawed PKK.

The Constitutional Court is expected to hear the verbal defense of HADEP's Murat Bozlak today, as part of the closure case, which was opened three years ago.

The Constitutional Court has banned HADEP's predecessors, such as the People's Labor Party (HEP) and the pro-Kurdish Democracy Party (DEP), on charges of being under the command of the PKK, and staging activities directed by this organization.

The European Parliament also asked Turkey to end the legal actions against students demanding Kurdish elective courses.

Noting that Turkey has responsibilities to fulfill, as it is a member candidate to the European Union, the European Parliament said that it hoped that in the future, Turkey would grant legal rights to all minorities living in Turkey.

"Turkey can achieve full-membership in the EU, only if it respects all of the Copenhagen Criteria and basic human rights," the decision said.

5. - Chicago Tribune - "CIA team, Kurds met to talk about Hussein, dissidents say":

WASHINGTON / by Anthony Shadid / The Boston Globe

A CIA team visited northern Iraq last month for meetings over three days with Kurdish officials opposed to President Saddam Hussein, U.S.-backed Iraqi dissidents said here Wednesday.

The team included the CIA station chief in Turkey and three agents who visited leaders of the two main Kurdish factions in the northern town of Suleimaniyya and a second town near Erbil, the dissidents said.

They described the visit, which followed a trip in December by a State Department team led by diplomat Ryan Crocker, as different from past forays because it was designed to gauge the Kurds' willingness to take part in specific U.S.-backed efforts to oust Hussein.

"This was a different visit," one Iraqi opposition leader said. "They were asking under what conditions they would cooperate in the overthrow of Saddam."

The London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat Wednesday quoted unidentified sources as saying another team of seven CIA officers and military intelligence staff is currently in northern Iraq. The Hague-datelined report said the team is scouting three bases that could land aircraft in Kurdish-controlled territory with an eye toward creating a staging point for future U.S. opposition to the Iraqi leader, much like the United States and Northern Alliance did in Afghanistan.

The CIA refused to comment on either reported visit, but Iraqi officials in Washington said they doubted reports of the current visit detailed in Al-Hayat. "The Americans know these bases inside out. They don't need to visit them," one said.

Separately, State Department officials said the Bush administration is prepared to finance construction of a radio transmitter in Iraq's Kurdish enclave or in Iran so the Iraqi opposition can begin broadcasts to encourage opposition to Hussein.

"We have given tentative approval to the concept of putting a transmitter in Iraq or Iran," a State Department official said. "But we cannot support it unless the Kurds or Iranians agree."

Either project--backing Kurdish opposition or a radio transmitter--would run counter to previous U.S. policy, which avoided funding opposition operations inside Iraq because they were too risky.

The Iraqi opposition maintains contacts inside Iraq and is often one of the few conduits for information that comes out. Opposition leaders have said they fear the United States is not serious about toppling Hussein, but most support U.S. intervention as the only way to get rid of a leader who is zealous in countering any domestic dissent.

The reports reflect a growing sense in Washington that some form of action against Iraq is inevitable--ranging from the threat of force to compel Iraq to accept international weapons inspectors to a decisive military move to oust the Iraqi leader, who has frustrated the efforts of four U.S. administrations to drive him from power.

One plan backed by some members of Congress and staff in the Pentagon envisions a scenario that draws heavily on the experience in Afghanistan. Under that plan, U.S. bombing would target Iraqi command centers, tanks and the Republican Guard, while opposition forces would attack Iraqi forces in the Kurdish-controlled north and the south, which is dominated by Shiite Muslims.

The Kurds exercise autonomy in the north along the Turkish border, but are wary of getting too involved in U.S. efforts that, if unsuccessful, will inevitably expose them to Hussein's wrath.

6. - The New York Times - "U.S. hopes to broadcast Iraqi opposition's voice":

WASHINGTON / by Michael R. Gordon

The Bush administration is prepared to finance the construction of a radio transmitter in the Kurdish enclave in Iraq or in neighboring Iran so that the Iraqi opposition can begin broadcasts to encourage opposition to Saddam Hussein, according to State Department officials.

"We have given tentative approval to the concept of putting a transmitter in Iraq or Iran," a State Department official said Wednesday. "But we cannot support it unless the Kurds or Iranians agree."

There are increasing signs that the Bush administration is girding for a political - and potentially military - showdown with Iraq over Saddam's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

The decision to build the transmitter represents a new degree of support for the Iraqi National Congress, as the Iraqi opposition group is known, as well as some flexibility in Washington's dealings with Iran. For years, the State Department has insisted that it would not consider financing opposition operations inside Iraq because they were too risky, and President George W. Bush recently labeled Iran as part of an "axis of evil."

Now, however, the State Department has indicated that it is prepared to pay to build the transmitter on Iraqi territory to beam the Iraqi opposition's programs across Iraq if the project is supported by the main Kurdish groups in the northern part of the country.

The choice of Iran as a potential base for the transmitter demonstrates that, despite Bush's characterization of Iran, there are cases where American and Iranian interests may intersect.

Just as both nations found some common cause in their opposition to the Taliban government in Afghanistan, they each have long-standing rivalries with Saddam, who fought a brutal land war against Iran through much of the 1980s.

The construction of a radio transmitter on Iranian territory would not be the first time that the Bush administration has financed activities in Iran by the Iraqi opposition.

Last year, the Bush administration gave money to the Iraqi National Congress to open an office in Tehran, which has been an important base for many of its activities. To use that money, the Iraqi opposition received a license from the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control, which administers the American sanctions against Iran.

Ahmed Chalabi, the founder of the Iraqi National Congress, said that the Iranians would support the construction of an American-financed radio transmitter on their territory.

But Chalabi indicated that, for reasons of symbolism, as well as practicality, his primary goal was to persuade the State Department that he has sufficient Kurdish backing to allow the installation of the transmitter on Iraqi soil in parts of northern Iraq that the Kurds control.

The Kurds in the north have been protected by American and British air patrols over their region but are not united among themselves.

That battle over just how much Kurdish support is needed before the United States would pay to build a transmitter in northern Iraq may just be beginning. A State Department official said it would require the backing of the two main Kurdish groups, which are led by Jalal Talabani and his rival Massoud Barzani.

"We feel it is important that these two major Kurdish groups support this move," a State Department official said. "I am sure you could always find a Kurd who will support this. That is not what we are looking for."

But Chalabi said he was not proposing to put the transmitter on territory controlled by Talabani or Barzani, because that would make them vulnerable to threats from Saddam.

Instead, Chalabi wants to place the transmitter on Sorain Mountain, which is close to the Iranian border, well away from Saddam's forces and in a region that Chalabi says is under the control of a small Kurdish Socialist party that supports the plan.

"I do not believe this will be a problem if the U.S wants to help us do it," Chalabi said. "Talabani and Barzani think it would be difficult to put it on their territory, but they are not objecting to our message."

The plan for the radio broadcasts is just one element of the Iraqi opposition's broader plans to undermine Saddam. The Iraqi National Congress is also planning to hold a conference of several hundred former - and even some current - Iraqi military officers. The State Department is supporting the conference, which would be held in Washington.