9
September 2002
2. "Abdullah Ocalan: „State should respect the democratic will of the Kurdish people”, KADEK President Abdullah Ocalan stated that the Kurdish potential were tried to be dissolved and HADEP to be out of the system. “The state should respect the democratic will of the Kurdish people” said Ocalan.
3. "Iraq's Kurds sign "timely" accord amid US threats of attack", The heads of the two main Kurdish factions in northern Iraq signed an accord Sunday to end a longstanding rivalry, as US President George W. Bush looks to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) leader Massoud Barzani and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) chief Jalal Talabani told reporters they reached an agreement to resolve any lingering disputes from a 1998 US-brokered peace deal which sought to end almost five years of armed conflict between the factions.
4. "Turkey's EU bid could up regional tensions: Greek PM", Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis said Friday that Turkey's slow-moving bid for EU membership, lacking clear support for a start to accession talks from the 15-member bloc, could raise political tensions. Ankara's push to set a date for the beginning of talks by the EU summit in December, combined with "the apparent refusal up until now of certain member countries to accept such an agreement, could lead to tensions," Simitis said.
5. "Turks Would Be Reluctant Ally Against Iraq", Economic Concerns, Threat From Kurds Complicate U.S. Effort to Court Strategic Muslim Country.
6. "Kurdish family takes Turkey to European Court demanding Kurdish name for child", a Kurdish family is petitioning an international court saying Turkey infringed on their rights by denying them permission to give their baby boy a Kurdish name, a newspaper reported Friday.
1. - The Daily Star - "Turkey’s new army command grapples with challenges":
9 September 2002
General Huseyin Kivrikoglu’s tenure as Turkish chief of staff
ended on Sept. 1. General Hilmi Ozkok, who proceeded to make many personnel
changes in the army high command, replaced him. Changes like these are
no big deal when they take place in European or other countries. But
Turkey is something else. When a new chief of staff is appointed, it
is an event no less important than the election of a new president.
The role played by the army in Turkish politics is as old as the state itself, and is enshrined in the Turkish Constitution. The army has instigated several coups over the years as proof of the pivotal role it plays in Turkish public life.
The handover is particularly significant, coming at a time when Turkey is facing crucial challenges related to the future role of the army in running the country.
The new army leadership will have to contend with the issue of Turkey’s quest for European Union (EU) membership, which gained momentum with the constitutional changes ratified early last month. These changes included abolishing capital punishment and granting limited rights to the country’s large Kurdish minority.
One of the EU’s foremost conditions for accepting Turkey’s membership, however, is the abolition of the army’s role in politics. This point is likely to be the most sensitive issue in Turkish-EU relations and any progress (or otherwise) in this regard will depend primarily on the position adopted by the new army high command.
In his handover address, outgoing Chief of Staff Kivrikoglu stressed that: “Portraying our sensitivity toward certain issues as being somehow anti-European is unfair and despairing … accusing the Turkish armed forces of being anti-European has no basis in fact.”
The new army leadership will also have to contend with the issue of Cyprus’ accession to the EU. Turkey has already warned the Europeans against taking such a step before finding a solution satisfactory to Ankara and Turkish Cypriots.
Sources at the Turkish Foreign Ministry say Ankara is about to merge the northern Cypriot Foreign Ministry with the Turkish Foreign Ministry in a step designed to indicate Turkish readiness to annex northern Cyprus outright. Now that negotiations between Greece and Turkey over the Cyprus issue have reached a dead end, the situation on the island has become open to all sorts of possibilities including warfare.
General Ozkok will also have to contend with a possible US strike against Iraq and the effects this will have on Turkey. Turkish sensitivities toward the possibility of an independent Kurdish state rising in northern Iraq are well known.
Recently, the Iraqi Kurds have been loudly opposing Turkish involvement. Masoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party in northern Iraq, called Ankara to pull its forces out of northern Iraq and threatened to turn the region into a “graveyard for Turkish troops.”
But the new Turkish military leadership seems determined to defend “Turkey’s interests” in ways not seen before. The new commander of Turkish land forces, General Aytac Yalman, made a point of distancing his country’s position from that adopted by the US.
Yalman recently said Turkey will “ensure its own interests” whatever the situation in Iraq. Showing disdain for the Iraqi Kurds, Yalman asked scornfully: “Who is this Barzani?”
On the other hand, the new military leadership seems determined to improve Turkey’s relations with Syria, Iraq and Iran who all, says Yalman, oppose Iraqi Kurdish independence. The new commander called for opening a new border crossing at the point where the Turkish, Syrian and Iraqi borders meet to replace the current one at Khabur, which he says falls under Barzani’s influence.
Yet despite all these serious external threats, it seems the new Turkish military leadership’s eyes are fixed for the short term at least on the upcoming parliamentary elections scheduled for Nov. 3. These elections would not have attracted so much attention from the military had it not been for polls predicting a win for the Islam-based Justice and Development Party (AKP).
The prospect of an Islamist victory will pose a threat to the armed forces as serious as that posed by Necmettin Erbakan in 1996-97. The country is still suffering from the social and political consequences of that confrontation. What is galling for the army is that all the oppressive measures it instigated to uproot the Islamist movement in the country (the so-called Feb. 28, 1997 decrees to contain political Islam) have apparently failed. A new Islamist party has managed to win Turkey’s overwhelming support only five years after the campaign.
Sure enough, pro-establishment Turkish newspapers have already started trumpeting what they call “the nightmare scenario,” in which AKP leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan seizes power. The Turkish political establishment has apparently prepared several plans to deal with this possibility.
The first is to prevent Erdogan from running (under the pretext of his conviction under Article 312 of the Penal Code) in order to weaken his party’s chances in the elections. But this might backfire by increasing support for the AKP. Another plan is to build a strong alliance to compete with Erdogan and beat him at the ballot box. There are rumors that Kivrikoglu might join the leftist Republican People’s Party. Although the general denied these rumors, the message that reached the Turkish electorate was that the military supports Diniz Baykal’s party (which was recently joined by former economics minister Kemal Dervis). A Baykal-Dervis-army alliance might not be able to defeat Erdogan, but it might run him very close and deprive him of a landslide victory.
There were strong indications during the army handover ceremony that an anti-Erdogan campaign was under way. Ozkok forcefully criticized “reactionary forces” in his inaugural address. He promised to continue the battle against the Islamists with the same determination demonstrated by his predecessor. Ozkok declared that fighting those who want to impose Sharia law on the country is the duty of all “modern institutions,” an apparent reference to the Turkish judiciary.
But it is useful to point out that the battle the military is waging is not exclusively against the Islamists. It is also against all forces of Turkish civil society. The real nightmare scenario that may emerge is therefore not the possibility of the Islamists attaining power, but the military continuing to act as a brake for the domestic social dynamics in a country as large and important as Turkey.
Mohammad Noureddine, an expert on Turkish affairs,
wrote this commentary for The Daily Star 
2. - Kurdish Observer - "Abdullah Ocalan: „State should respect the democratic will of the Kurdish people”:
KADEK President Abdullah Ocalan stated that the Kurdish potential were tried to be dissolved and HADEP to be out of the system. “The state should respect the democratic will of the Kurdish people” said Ocalan.
MHA/FRANKFURT / 7 September 2002
KADEK President Abdullah Ocalan made important statement about the
latest political developments. Ocalan stated that the Kurdish potential
were tried to be dissolved and HADEP to be out of the system. “As
they used to say that if communism is necessary we establish it too,
now they say if being pro-Kurdish is necessary, we will do it”
said Ocalan, emphasizing that such an approach had nothing to do with
democracy.
Ocalan continued to say the following: “In Turkey the system functions under the orders of the military. And it have not yet decided on the Kurdish democracy. They have hesitations. They have tried to dissolve the Kurdish potential through Ecevit but it has not succeeded. They have wanted to dissolve it within CHP. Overthrowing Altan Oymen had something to the with it. They cannot digest the Kurdish potential. They try to dissolve the Kurdish potential. For it they organize Kurdish courses and make them as they wish.”
“THEY TRY TO FORCE HADEP OUT OF THE SYSTEM”
Bringing up the subject of early elections and HADEP, Ocalan had this to say: “If HADEP enters into the elections, they will close down it. They try to force HADEP into a road they wish. It is not in vain that Ecevit makes statements on HADEP continuously. And they will tame AKP (a pro-Islamic party) through US and England. They may tame SP but cannot tame HADEP. They will make HADEP ineffective in this elections, they could not dissolve it but will force it out of the system. HADEP is a problem for the establishment. It is not yet certain how they solve this problem, it is the main problem. But they will not recognize the will of the Kurdish people.”
"HONEST LEFTIST SECTIONS SHOULD COME TOGETHER”
Pointing out that left could preserve its honor only by coming together with Alaouites and non-governmental organizations, Ocalan said with words to the effect: “Founding a new party parallel to HADEP is favourable. It is in fact main guarantee of democracy. The climate is good. Kurds are ready but the Turkish people should be organized. In Kurdish left enmity towards free Kurd has not yet overcome. Breaking chauvinism is important for such a party. Brotherhood of the two peoples can develop only on free grounds. You can come together with Alaouite associations, non-governmental organizations. Such a unity will save the honor of the left. If there were unity in the left, there would be brotherhood between peoples. It is important for honest sections of the left to come together.”
“KURDS ARE FORCED TO SEPERATISM”
KADEK President underscored that Kurds were tried to be imposed collaborationism, but it could not be accepted, adding that in case there was no solution, armed clashes would begin again six months later. Ocalan continued to say the following: “They do not leave any other alternative for our people. And it does not get along well with democratic republic. A controlled, guided democracy brings no benefit to Turkey. Democracy is a reconciliation between state and society. But there is a hidden play in Turkey. Why do they play it? Because they are guilty, their offences will come on the scene in a rapid succession, they do not trust themselves. They want to violate rights of the Kurdish people. Entering into the parliament is not important. They will lose if Kurds do not enter into the parliament. But it is important to stress the following: The state should respect the democratic will of the Kurdish people. If in 1920 there were a Kurdish will, it would not be like it is now. Uprising has not developed democracy, on the contrary damaged Kurds themselves.”
“STRUGGLE FOR DEMOCRACY INSISTENTLY”
Abdullah Ocalan commented on the accession to the European Union: “The reason of the tension between EU and Turkey is negotiations about me. They continue to negotiate about my life. We do not know how it will come to a conclusion. There are two alternatives. Either they develop a consistent democracy or there will a war-waging Turkey. Turkey experiences such a dilemma. There is one and only party in Turkey, it rules the other 50 parties. It makes what it wills. I am under very strict military discipline here but I have will and use my own strength. I have capacity to think and use it well. The state tries to play with me, they try to get me fired. But I deny all of it. The system will force you, but you struggle for democracy insistently, till the end. If the state cannot reach an agreement with me, then it will not reach an agreement with you.”
“ORGANIZE YOURSELF”
KADEK President Abdullah Ocalan pointed out that the state
had not yet decided on the solution. Drawing attention that Kurds should
organize on the grounds of legitimate defence, the President asked for
the guerrilla forces to take all necessary measures in North and South
Kurdistan. Ocalan attracted attention to the following points: “You
should organize yourself, non-governmental organizations should be established.
Train cadres for them, open Kurdish courses. We have organizations for
it. These are democratic rights of the Kurdish people. Reinforce yourselves
on the grounds of legitimate defence. Wherever struggle for peace and
democracy is favourable, concentrate your activities there. Take all
necessary measures in North and South. There may be an American operation.
Lead your lives at your own free mountains. If there is no solution,
there will be armed clashes six months later.”
3. - AFP - "Iraq's Kurds sign "timely" accord amid US threats of attack":
ARBIL / 8 Sept 2002
The heads of the two main Kurdish factions in northern Iraq signed
an accord Sunday to end a longstanding rivalry, as US President George
W. Bush looks to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Kurdistan Democratic
Party (KDP) leader Massoud Barzani and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan
(PUK) chief Jalal Talabani told reporters they reached an agreement
to resolve any lingering disputes from a 1998 US-brokered peace deal
which sought to end almost five years of armed conflict between the
factions.
The new accord would reactivate the Kurdish parliament, which is split evenly between the KDP and PUK, that was elected in 1992 but has not convened with all its members since 1996 when fighting between the sides reached its peak, with the PUK briefly aligning itself with Iran and the KDP with Baghdad. Under the deal, which was announced after two days of talks in the mountain town of Salahadin where the KDP has its headquarters, the leaders said they agreed to fix a date for "the reactivation of the unified parliament."
Parliament is to meet at its seat in Arbil, the main town in Kurdish-held northern Iraq, on October 4, a KDP spokesman in London, Dilshad Miran, told AFP by telephone. The two leaders also agreed on "a mechanism for the functioning of parliament," according to a joint statement which made no mention of a date for new elections. The KDP and PUK, which share control of northern Iraq, are to set up four high-level joint committees "to settle within a month all the others outstanding points," it said.
The agreement "puts an end to all the differences and settles all the questions" remaining from the US-brokered peace accord signed between the rival groups in Washington in September 1998, the statement said. The Barzani-Talibani meeting was their first for almost two years in Iraqi Kurdistan, a region outside Baghdad's control since after the 1991 Gulf War when the Kurds rose up against Saddam only to have their revolt suppressed and the US and British military introduce a no-fly zone to protect them.
The two leaders met twice earlier this year, once in the United States and once in Germany, paving the way for the latest stab at reconciliation. Their US-brokered peace process had been stalled despite the 1998 Washington accord that aimed at halting a conflict that cost more than 3,000 lives, fueled by a power struggle and dispute over tax revenues. Their reconciliation came as Washington has been stepping up threats to embark on military action to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
The United States is moving forward with its plans but the breakaway Iraqi Kurds will not seek independence if the Baghdad regime is ousted, Talabani said on his return from talks in Washington last month with US officials and a wide array of Iraqi opposition groups. "The agreement is a timely one, coming at a time that Iraq is threatened by a US strike," said Mirani. "The agreement, which crowns the efforts for normalisation begun several months ago, also permits the Kurds to consolidate the gains of these last years," he said, alluding to Iraqi Kurds' self-rule, an aberration for an ethnic group that enjoys, at best, minority status in Iran, Syria and Turkey.
For his part, PUK spokesman Latif Rashid hailed the agreement
as "vital for uniting the Kurds." "The accord clearly
proves that the Kurds believe in democracy and constructive dialogue,"
he said. The peace deal comes as both parties fear the hard-earned autonomy
that the Kurds have won since the US and Britain started enforcing a
no-fly zone 11 years ago could be lost in the looming confrontation
between Washington and Baghdad. The KDP controls northeastern Kurdistan
along the border with Turkey, while the PUK holds the enclave's southeastern
region near Iran. The two factions set up their own "governments"
in 1996.
4. - AFP - "Turkey's EU bid could up regional tensions: Greek PM":
SALONIKA / 6 Sept 2002
Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis said Friday that Turkey's slow-moving
bid for EU membership, lacking clear support for a start to accession
talks from the 15-member bloc, could raise political tensions. Ankara's
push to set a date for the beginning of talks by the EU summit in December,
combined with "the apparent refusal up until now of certain member
countries to accept such an agreement, could lead to tensions,"
Simitis said.
The EU has welcomed recent political reforms in Ankara long believed necessary to be considered a viable candidate. But Brussels has also made it clear that they are not sufficient in themselves and declined to set a date for accession talks during a recent EU foreign ministers' meeting in Elsinore, Denmark. Speaking at the 67th Salonika International Fair in northern Greece, Simitis said neighboring Turkey may also toughen up its rhetoric ahead of November elections and because of the global political climate.
"Tension in the Middle East creates among some Turkish military circles the impression that their influence can grow and that they can follow a tougher line on other matters," he said. He added that Ankara's "pre-electoral climate of one-upmanship" will add to EU negotiations and create "an uncertain environment". The Greek leader emphasized Athens' commitment to securing Cyprus's spot in the European body, adding: "Cyprus cannot be the hostage of (Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf) Denktash or of Ankara."
Cyprus, a strategically important Mediterranean island
divided since Turkey invaded its northern third in 1974, is a front-runner
for EU membership, tentatively set for 2004. But its candidacy has piled
more pressure on Greece and Turkey to find a solution to the decades-long
territorial dispute. "The attitude of the Turkish Cypriot party
has shown a lack of willingness to seek substantial solutions,"
Simitis said, adding that it "seeks to block Cyprus's entry"
into the European body. He added that current political turmoil in Ankara
made advances in negotiations difficult.
5. - Washington Post - "Turks Would Be Reluctant Ally Against Iraq":
Economic Concerns, Threat From Kurds Complicate U.S. Effort to Court Strategic Muslim Country
ISTANBUL / 7 Sept 2002 / by Karl Vick
In the 44 years since Turkey first accommodated U.S. fighter jets
on its soil, military cooperation between the two allies has been a
matter of crisp daily routine. But this summer, when the Pentagon sent
word to Turkey's general staff that it wanted to send over teams to
survey bases and airfields that might be useful in a campaign against
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the reaction was not so much crisp as
brittle.
" 'Why?' " one Western official involved in the exchange recalled the Turks demanding. " 'Tell us now. Don't tell us 24 hours before you send in the troops or something.'
"They are," the official said, "a little suspicious."
The suspicions have foundation, say Turkish officials, Western diplomats and independent analysts.
President Bush and his top aides have made clear their intention to drive Hussein from power, and Turkey might be the most crucial U.S. ally if Bush opts for military means to accomplish his goal. Besides being the only Muslim member of NATO, a vaunted island of stability in near Asia and a secular role model to nations tempted by political Islam, the nation of 60 million is a logical staging ground for land and air operations against its troublesome neighbor to the south.
But the last time the United States mounted a military campaign against Iraq, in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Turkey lost twice, sacrificing both its largest trading partner and a chunk of its peace of mind. The uprising by Iraq's ethnic Kurds immediately after the war, and the eventual Kurdish control of much of northern Iraq, unsettled a Turkish government that has been at war with separatists among its own Kurdish population for most of the last two decades. And in the long drum roll to a possible new campaign in Iraq, Washington has caused fresh unease in Turkey by conspicuously courting Iraqi Kurds as a major ally.
Today, Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit reaffirmed his government's stance when he told Turkey's Anatolian News Agency that "before taking any steps linked to Iraq, the United States absolutely must enter into dialogue with Turkey."
"We don't want to come into disagreement with the United States, but we also do not want war in our own region," Ecevit said.
However, Turkey's strong public reluctance to support a U.S.-led war on Iraq is accompanied, according to diplomats, former diplomats and analysts, by a private acknowledgment that Turkey would not risk being left out if one in fact goes forward.
The result is a tangle of overlapping sensitivities that U.S. officials have tried to pick through with care.
"I have never met a Turk who likes this idea," said Mark Parris, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, referring to the prospect of a new Iraq campaign.
"There won't be any problem on the technical side when people begin to move," Parris said. "The question will be how we deal with Turkey's requirements and . . . showing the politicians they won't be saps getting absolutely nothing for all their trouble."
Before attacking Iraq 11 years ago, U.S. officials promised to offset the economic impact on Turkey by having leading members of the anti-Hussein coalition provide the Ankara government with $1 billion a year. But diplomats and others here say that none of the money has materialized, while the estimated cost to date of losing trade with Iraq stands between $12 billion and $50 billion.
As they approach Turkey this time, U.S. officials have gingerly moved to address what one Western diplomat called "a certain lingering suspicion" of new promises. When Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz visited last month, he pointed out that Congress had appropriated $200 million to pay off U.S. loans to Turkey, on top of an overdue $28 million toward Turkey's expenses as head of the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan's capital, Kabul.
Diplomatic sources say that Turkish officials, while avoiding the term compensation, have also indicated an appetite for reductions on a $5 billion military debt, special consideration on arms contracts, and technology transfers on par with those the United States offers Israel, another close Turkish ally.
Turkey also wants assurances that Washington will use its influence to ensure continued assistance from the International Monetary Fund, which already is lending Turkey $16 billion to shore up an economy that all but collapsed early last year.
"Turkey doesn't want to convey that they're being bought off," said one Western diplomat, who noted a private U.S. expression of intent to provide the loan if the IMF does not. "On the other hand, they're sort of on a knife's edge economically and politically."
But gaining Turkish support is not as simple as writing a check, officials and analysts emphasize.
By all accounts, Turkey's overriding concern is its own sovereignty, which it saw threatened by the unexpected fallout from the last U.S. campaign against Iraq. In the Gulf War, the elder Bush administration encouraged Iraq's persecuted minorities to rise up against Hussein, including ethnic Kurds in the country's northern reaches. The uprising ended with Hussein still in power but the battered Kurds protected by U.S. and British warplanes enforcing a "no-fly" zone north of Iraq's 36th parallel.
That protection offered a tantalizing taste of the freedom craved by the region's 25 to 30 million Kurds, who are spread across adjoining portions of Iraq, Syria, Iran and, most significantly, Turkey. Turkish Kurds had begun an armed rebellion in 1984, aimed at establishing a separate Kurdish homeland. The rebellion claimed an estimated 30,000 lives before subsiding two years ago, and Turkey's leaders are not eager to see a new regional war revive Kurdish nationalism.
Wolfowitz and others have publicly assured the Turks that the United States will not allow a Kurdish nation to be carved out of Iraq -- or its neighbors. But Turkish officials nevertheless contend that the Americans have not satisfactorily explained how a fragmentation of Iraq would be avoided if Hussein were toppled.
"What is your exit strategy?" asked an official in the Turkish Foreign Ministry. "We have to tread our way very carefully when thinking of a surgical or traumatic change in the region. The dismemberment of Iraq is not an impossible outcome scenario."
The bottom line for Turkey is full disclosure both of U.S. war plans and current thinking on who, or what, will replace Hussein. When he met Turkish President Ahmet Sezer in South Africa last week, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell emphasized that Turkey would not be surprised by U.S. action.
"They have to share their plans with us if they want our cooperation," said a second Foreign Ministry official.
In addition, officials said Turkey also saw a need for an active hand in an uncertain enterprise that could carry profound consequences for its future.
"Wolfowitz told the Turks, 'The train is leaving. If you're on it, you can help to steer it,' " one diplomat said.
Yet Turkish officials, while not disputing that reading, emphasize that Turkey's cooperation will be necessary only if the operation goes forward. And it has not stopped them from trying to prevent that, despite public claims by prominent hawks in Washington that Turkey is on board.
"The ability to say, 'The Turks are with us' is important in the bureaucratic struggle in Washington that must precede any action," said Bulent Aliriza, a Turkey specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
However, Aliriza said, Turkish cooperation "is not
an endorsement" of a U.S. decision to attack Iraq again. "It's
an explicit recognition of the decision."
6. - AP - "Kurdish family takes Turkey to European Court demanding Kurdish name for child":
7 September 2002
A Kurdish family is petitioning an international court saying Turkey
infringed on their rights by denying them permission to give their baby
boy a Kurdish name, a newspaper reported Friday.
Berdan Acun, an attorney, petitioned the European Court of Human Rights after authorities in Diyarbakir, southeastern Turkey, turned down several requests by his family to name their child Hajar Pola, the daily Hurriyet reported. The name means 'silent and calm child,' in Kurdish, Acun said.
Turkey fought a 15-year war with Kurdish rebels and has long said that allowing Kurds to give their children Kurdish names could encourage separatism and break up the country.
Turkey, a candidate to join the European Union, is, however, under pressure to grant greater rights to Kurds.
If the court finds Turkey violated the European Convention on Human Rights, it can demand a fine and request that Turkey overturn the ban.
As part of its EU bid, Turkey's parliament recently passed sweeping laws allowing Kurds the right to broadcast and teach in Kurdish. European officials have said they are waiting to see how the reforms are implemented.
Earlier this year, prosecutors in Diyarbakir province
charged several families with supporting the rebels by giving their
children traditional Kurdish names, but a court later dropped the case.
Prosecutors have pressed similar charges elsewhere in Turkey.