23 October 2003

1. "Five Bad Grades For Turkey in EU Progress Report", the finishing touches are being put on the European Union Commission’s (EC) progress report, to be issued on November 5. Reportedly, the E.U. will raise five important issues in the report, which are critical to Turkey’s negotiation process at the December 2004 summit.

2. "Kurd Trial Sours Turkey's EU Hopes", Friday saw the eighth hearing of the retrial of Kurdish dissident Leyla Zana and three of her colleagues.

3. "Turkey: Exchange Zana For KADEK", the fact that, in spite of the insistence of Turkey, KADEK was not included in EU’s list of terrorist organizations, causes problems between Ankara and Brussels. EU, which promulgated the revised list on September 16 but not cited KADEK, draws criticisms of Ankara.

4. "Turkey in no rush to send troops to Iraq", more than two weeks after the Turkish parliament approved sending soldiers to Iraq, their deployment appears to be stalled with Iraqi leaders opposing the move and Turkish leaders saying they have no desire to force the issue.

5. "Best for all if Turkey stays out of Iraq", although the Bush administration won formal United Nations recognition for its rule in Iraq, that diplomatic victory is likely to yield few allied troops for occupation duty.

6. "Route cause", Owen Bowcott and Rob Evans on the cabinet rookie's tough decision.

1. - Zaman - "Five Bad Grades For Turkey in EU Progress Report":

BRUSSELS / 23 October 2003 / by Selcuk Gultasli

The finishing touches are being put on the European Union Commission’s (EC) progress report, to be issued on November 5. Reportedly, the E.U. will raise five important issues in the report, which are critical to Turkey’s negotiation process at the December 2004 summit. The commission will, for the first time, appraise the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government’s reform process.

The issues to be tackled are: judicial power and reform laws, which will be scrutinized according to freedom principles. Concluding that reforms have been implemented through a narrow frame, the E.C. will assert that the state did not fulfill its responsibilities regarding the adaptation process. It will be pointed out that problems stemming from legislative discrepancies concerning freedom of speech and organization continue. It will also be stated that the implementation of laws providing education and broadcasting in native languages are not at the required level.

After these five priority issues have been dealt with, the report will mention that verdicts reached by Turkish courts are not in line with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Reportedly, the Democratic People’s Party’s (DEP) deputy Leyla Zana’s case will be cited in the report.

Prior to this year’s progress report, Turkish officials and social organizations have been regularly in contact with Günther Verheugen, the E.U. Enlargement Commissioner. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen Association (TUSIAD) and Economic Development Foundation (IKV) are paid visits to Brussels to discuss the issues in the report. All of the committees meeting with Verheugen in the past month left Brussels with hope.

It was frequently emphasized in the meetings that the Cyprus issue should be resolved. Although not included in the Copenhagen Criteria, the commission maintains that Turkey’s membership is unlikely unless the problem is solved. And, regarding religious freedom, the E.C. has begun to indicate that the Vatican should be persuaded for Turkey’s membership.

2. - BBC - "Kurd Trial Sours Turkey's EU Hopes":

ANKARA / 21 October 2003 / by Jonny Dymond

Friday saw the eighth hearing of the retrial of Kurdish dissident Leyla Zana and three of her colleagues.

All four of them were imprisoned in 1994 for membership of the PKK, the Kurdish paramilitary group.

In the same year, the European Parliament awarded Leyla Zana the Sakharov Peace Prize.

Several members of the Parliament were at the retrial on Friday.

This was probably was not very good news for Turkey's hopes for European Union candidacy, because although the retrial itself is a product of Turkey's EU reforms, its conduct makes something of a mockery of Turkey's efforts at human rights protection.

Legal flaws

To whoops and applause from excited onlookers, Leyla Zana and her three co-defendants left the prison van, gazed up briefly at the waiting cameras and then walked through a side door of Ankara's State Security Court.

Inside the court around 200 people crowded the public benches, in among them the MEPs along with representatives of foreign embassies and international legal observers.

The European Court of Human Rights declared the last trial was unfair and they were here to see that this time justice is done.

But, according to observers, this one is still badly flawed in the way that evidence is taken and legal submissions recorded and in the way the prosecution seems to have more of a say than the defence.

Indeed the prosecution sits pretty much next to the three judges, whilst the defence team crane their necks to catch the chief justice's eye.

'Grave concern'

And Stuart Kerr of the International Commission of Jurists says there is still more.

"We're also extremely concerned about the presumption of innocence being violated," he said.

"There have been a number of occasions when these defendants have been referred to as guilty in this trial.

"The reasons for their continued detention seem to stem from a previous decision of the 1994 court of their guilt and those are matters that cause grave concern."

It could not really have come at a worse time.

Turkey is just over a year away from a decision by the European Union as to when and whether it can start on the long road to membership.

'Farce'

Over the past few years, various governments have struggled getting reform packages through parliament so as to modernise the legal system and bring human rights protection up to European standards.

But Europe wants more.

It wants to see that those reforms are being implemented.

And now there is a high-profile trial with a good number of EU observers and parliamentarians, showing month after month that in some of the most important parts of the Turkish state nothing has changed.

An Italian MEP spat one word at me outside the court.

"Farce", she said. "Farce". The next hearing is in November.

3. - Eastern Daylight Time - "Turkey: Exchange Zana For KADEK":

23 October 2003

The fact that, in spite of the insistence of Turkey, KADEK was not included in EU’s list of terrorist organizations, causes problems between Ankara and Brussels. EU, which promulgated the revised list on September 16 but not cited KADEK, draws criticisms of Ankara.

Turkish officials in contact with EU Commission reportedly remind the reactions of the Commission and European Parliament (EP) and gave the message that, “If you include KADEK in the list of terrorist organizations, then the course of DEP case may change.” The same officials stated that the Turkish public questioned the sincerity of EU in this issue and had difficulties in viewing the reactions to the DEP case as serious. The message that, “Put KADEK in your list of terrorist organizations so that people can understand that your reaction at the DEP case, in which Leyla Zana and three other former DEP deputies are being tried on grounds that they assisted PKK, is a matter of principle.”

Following the September 11 incident, EU decided to prepare a list of terrorist organizations at the end of 2001. It included PKK and DHKP-C in this list last year, however it ignored the fact that PKK replaced its name with KADEK. Except for Turkey, all candidate countries approved this list.

The last version of the list, which is revised once in every six months, was publicized on September 16. EU Commission, which did not include KADEK in the list, explained its rationale by stating that the organization did not launch an armed struggle.

Leyla Zana, a former DEP deputy, who received 15 years of prison sentence because of membership in PKK, is being tried in the Ankara State Security Court (DGM). If she and her friends are not released, it will probably be a “negative point” for Turkey in the Progress Report, which will be publicized on November 5. EP had bestowed Zana the Sakharov Human Rights Award in 1996. If released, Zana will go to Brussels to get this award and will deliver a speech in EP, where only the heads of state and EP deputies speak.

4. - AFP - "Turkey in no rush to send troops to Iraq":

ANKARA / 23 October 2003 / by Francis Curta

More than two weeks after the Turkish parliament approved sending soldiers to Iraq, their deployment appears to be stalled with Iraqi leaders opposing the move and Turkish leaders saying they have no desire to force the issue.

"It's the United States that requested the sending of Turkish soldiers to Iraq. We have not insisted on it (...) We have no intention of forcing our troops into Iraq," Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Thursday.

"But there is a US demand pending and if necessary we will send soldiers," he told Anatolia news agency while on an official visit to Dushanbe, the capital of the former Soviet republic of Tajikistan. Other Turkish leaders have recently insisted it's up to the United States to convince Iraq's Governing Council to invite Ankara to join coalition forces already on the ground and several suggested they were quite happy with the current stalemate.

"Waiting is not a bad thing," the president of the Turkish parliament's foreign affairs committee Mehmet Dulger told AFP. "To not send troops also suits us," he said, adding that "people shouldn't think the Turks are just dying to go."

Public opinion in Turkey is opposed to intervening in Iraq, fearing Turkish soldiers will be branded an occupying force, allied to the Americans, and that Muslims will end up fighting Muslims. Defence minister Vecdi Gonul, when asked Wednesday by journalists if not sending soldiers wasn't a problem, quipped back: "Why should it be a negative thing for Turkey?"

Meanwhile, military discussions on the nuts and blots of a deployment remain at a standstill, both US and Turkish officials acknowledge. And the Turkish government appears to have hardened its political stance, requesting from US Ambassador to Ankara, Eric Edelman, that Washington provide written guarantees relating to future constitutional arrangements in Iraq.

On Tuesday, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also hinted the Turks might have raised the ante in setting conditions for their deployment. "They said that under certain circumstances they would be willing to offer forces, subject to finding a method, an approach that was satisfactory to them, satisfactory to the Iraqis, and satisfactory to the coalition," Rumsfeld told a news conference.

"That process is underway. Whether or not they will ultimately find a method of satisfying everybody, I don't know. I hope so, because obviously we would like additional forces to be available" to relieve pressure on US forces, he said.

Bulent Aliriza, an analyst at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, suggested US officials were not optimistic about prospects for ending the current stalemate. The recent UN Security Council resolution authorizing a multinational force in Iraq also expressed support for the Iraqi governing council and Washington "can now ill-afford to overrule it when it expresses its opposition to Turkish deployment," Aliriza told AFP.

"They have to take the governing council more seriously from now on," he added. Kurdish members of the council, who oppose a Turkish transit through their territory in northern Iraq, have been particularly vocal in their opposition to a deployment. But Arab members of the council have also expressed disquiet over the presence of troops from a powerful neighbour, whose Ottoman ancestor once ruled the region.

Washington is hoping to bring round the Iraqis over time, according to one diplomat here. But the time factor might also be working against deployment, he acknowledged. "If you give it too much time, the Turkish government's enthusiasm might drop," he said.

5. - The Strait Times - "Best for all if Turkey stays out of Iraq":

23 October 2003 / by Doug Bandow

ALTHOUGH the Bush administration won formal United Nations recognition for its rule in Iraq, that diplomatic victory is likely to yield few allied troops for occupation duty.

In fact, even Turkey, which agreed to dispatch 10,000 soldiers after Washington's approval of US$8.5 billion (S$15 billion) in loans, is now reconsidering in the face of overwhelming Iraqi opposition.

The Bush administration's bid for Ankara's help reflects a dramatic change from just four months ago, when United States Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz dismissed potential Turkish contributions. 'I wouldn't rule out a role for Turkey, but I think right now we are looking to those people who were with us in the coalition to build a core of the peacekeeping function.

'My experience is if you talk to Iraqis, almost every one of their neighbours, including Turkey, is viewed from a historical perspective that is not always positive,' he added.

But that was then, when the administration was talking about cutting its occupation forces to 30,000 by the end of the year. Now, officials are debating increasing the US garrison. That means pushing Turkey to contribute troops.

Washington will have to pay a high price for Turkish help. Ankara has treated its Kurds with brutality approaching that of Saddam Hussein. Shortly after the war's conclusion, Turkey dispatched special forces, captured by American soldiers, to the city of Kirkut in US-occupied Iraq to assassinate the Kurdish interim governor.

But now, the Bush administration has reportedly promised to suppress the Kurdestan Workers Party, operating in northern Iraq. This would involve Washington in Turkey's guerilla war, which cost nearly 40,000 lives over the last two decades.

Iraqis, Kurds and non-Kurds alike, have little love for Turkey, which long occupied their lands as part of the Ottoman Empire. With Kurds threatening Turkish troops that enter their territory and terrorists already aiming one bomb at the Turkish embassy in Baghdad, Turkish authorities have promised a firm response to any attacks.

That is a prescription for violent opposition far more widespread than anything which so far has greeted American forces. The US might need to add far more than 10,000 troops to handle the resulting instability.

Of equal concern, Washington's pressure for military aid has undercut Turkish democracy.

Last year, Mr Wolfowitz cited Turkey as 'a model for the Muslim world's aspirations for democratic progress and prosperity'. But negotiations between America and Turkey over aid in the war against Iraq took on the appearance of haggling over a carpet at Istanbul's Grand Bazaar. And then Turkey's parliament rejected the deal.

Mr Wolfowitz responded with the rather astounding assertion that the military did not play 'a leadership role' on the issue. The fact the vast majority of the Turkish population opposed the war didn't matter.

In an interview with CNN Turkey, Mr Wolfowitz proclaimed the military should have said that 'it was in Turkey's interest to support the US' in Iraq. But members of the Parliament were hardly unaware of the stakes.

Although Mr Wolfowitz stated that 'I'm not suggesting that you (the military) get involved in politics at all', what else could have been the implication of his remarks for a country where the military has overthrown and more often manoeuvred to pressure and overthrow democratically elected governments and dismantle popular political parties?

In fact, while the Bush administration wants the military to play a larger role in Turkish policy, Turkey's parliament recently approved a measure reducing the military's control of the National Security Council, which influences most domestic as well as foreign policy decisions, and the defence budget.

Mr Omer Taspinar, a Visiting Fellow at the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy, warns that 'the current mood in Turkey is still very anti-American'. Appearing to range itself against the democratisation of Turkish politics could only worsen Washington's image. Nor will civilian rule benefit if Ankara finds its troops involved in an expanding Iraqi conflict.

Being a 'model for the Muslim world's aspirations for democratic progress' is how a moderate Islamic government came to power in Turkey and a democratically elected Islamic parliament came to reject America's request for military aid in the war against Iraq. And how the Turkish government might change its mind about augmenting America's occupation forces.

Washington must decide whether it values indigenous democracy or geopolitical support more. As the Turkish experience vividly demonstrates, foreign democracies often make decisions Washington doesn't like. In this case, all parties are probably better off if Ankara ultimately decides no.

* The writer is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to then president Ronald Reagan.

6. - The Guardian - "Route cause":

Owen Bowcott and Rob Evans on the cabinet rookie's tough decision

22 October 2003

Hilary Benn, the international development secretary, has been in office barely two weeks, but the time to decide whether to release public funds to a $3.7bn (£2.2bn) British-led pipeline consortium is almost up.

His decision on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) line, which will pump oil 1,087 miles from the Caspian Sea's gushing wells to Turkey's Mediterranean coast, will be one of the most critically scrutinised since rejection of the Ilisu dam project in Turkey.

British-based human rights and environmental groups have been at the forefront of the international protest movement, warning that the subterranean pipeline - being built by British oil giant BP - will reignite conflicts, threaten pollution and accelerate global warming.

A 220-page dossier, compiled by 15 groups in 10 countries and delivered to Benn, claims the project breaches World Bank lending guidelines on 173 separate counts, including failure to consider the danger of earthquakes or oil spills in the Turkish port of Ceyhan. The regulations detail how local people should be consulted and the environment protected, but the campaigners, which include Friends of the Earth (FOE), the Kurdish Human Rights Project and The Corner House, argue that consultation with affected villages has been inadequate.

Nicholas Hildyard, a director at The Corner House, says: "If Benn says yes, he will undermine the credibility of the bank's policies. He must call for a delay in the project until its many deficiencies are rectified."

Benn, who previously served in the Department for International Development (DfID), is no stranger to environmental impact studies. He may be under some pressure, however, if Downing Street is taking an interest in the success of such an international project.

Hannah Griffiths, FOE corporates campaigner, says: "Hilary Benn must stand up for development and environment, and not give in to pressure from New Labour's corporate friends."

There are understood to be reservations within DfID about granting approval for a $250m (£149m) loan at the next meeting of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) on October 30. The IFC is the arm of the World Bank that ensures projects in developing countries reduce poverty and improve lives. Benn decides which way Britain casts it vote.

A similar loan is likely to be authorised at a meeting of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in early November. A spokesman for the EBRD says: "We are pretty confident issues raised have been addressed and investigated by us, and any problems dealt with. The bankers are pretty confident the project is watertight. Pipeline projects have a stabilising effect: they force governments to work together and raise standards." The pipeline consortium has also approached Britain's Export Credits Guarantee Department for insurance cover.

BP has come under criticism also, but dismisses suggestions that it is taking British taxpayers' money. "We are paying interest on these loans," a spokesman says. "It's not free public money. We would normally be self-financing, but we are going through this route to help the smaller and state companies in the consortium."

The concerns of the DfID focus on the danger of the pipeline becoming a catalyst for reinvigorating ethnic conflicts between Azerbaijan and Armenia, particularly where the line runs close to the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. The anti-pipeline campaigners, meanwhile, have criticised the pipeline consortium for failing to consider seriously alternative strategic routes.

The pipeline's path reflects strategic US and European interest in developing an outlet that will lessen western dependence for oil on Saudi Arabia and the volatile Gulf region.

The Bush administration's enthusiasm for the project is evident from the text of diplomatic cables released to the Guardian under the US Freedom of Information Act. Sent by the US embassy in Baku to the department of state in Washington in April 2001, a telegram states: "Decisions being made on ... major oil pipelines and hydrocarbon structures will start a procurement process for over $7.5bn of goods and services. US companies are well positioned to participate in tenders given the strong US support for Azerbaijan's energy development and [an] east-west energy corridor."