30
July 2004
2. "Mazlum-Der: PKK should be discussed in Ankara, not Tehran", human rights organization Mazlum-Der said yesterday that Turkish officials should discuss the issue of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Ankara rather than with Iranian officials in Tehran.
3. "’EU Inspired Laws Remain on Paper’", the number of detentions increase as prosecutions decrease after the adoption of the Seventh Reform Package to broaden the right to reunion and demonstration, says MAZLUMDER, a pro-Islamist Turkish human rights organization.
4. "NGOs Meet Commissioner Verheugen on Turkey", IPA concerned about dangers threatening publishers in lead up to consideration of Turkey’s membership in the EU.
5. "Eurasia and Europe should Cooperate against America", according to Russian strategist Alexandr Dugin*, geopolitics as a philosophy of location is one of the most fundamental instruments that the postmodern age has developed against the historicism of modernity.
6. "Barroso: Decision on Turkey Will Be Made Soon", the date which the negotiations would commence with Turkey, would be decided soon.
Dear reader
Due to the holiday time our "Flash Bulletin" will not be forwarded to email addresses from August 2, 2004 until August 29, 2004. It can be viewed, however, in the internet at www.flash-bulletin.de as usual.
1. - Radio Free Europe - "Turkey/Iran: Kurdish Issues Dominate Turkish Prime Minister's Visit To Iran":
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan wraps up a visit to Tehran today. Yesterday, he said he expects Iran to outlaw the former Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) as a "terrorist" group. Such an agreement would, in theory, represent a breakthrough in bilateral ties, as both countries have in the past accused each other of sheltering Kurdish rebels.
PRAGUE / 29 July 2004 / by Jean-Christophe Peuch
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has held talks with Iranian officials over the past two days that have been dominated by possible cooperation against left-wing Kurdish separatist militants.
Before leaving Ankara on 27 July, the Turkish leader said he would try to persuade Iran to list the former PKK -- known now as Kongra-Gel -- as a "terrorist organization."
The Eastern Anatolian-based PKK has led a 15-year armed uprising against Turkey that has claimed an estimated 35,000 lives.
Following the arrest and trial of its leader Abdullah Ocalan in the late 1990s, the group officially laid down weapons and sought refuge in neighboring Iraq and Iran.
After it changed its name to Kongra-Gel, the group in June called off the cease-fire it had declared in 1999, accusing Turkey of not respecting the truce.
Fighting has since been reported almost daily in Turkey's predominantly Kurdish provinces. The latest incident occurred yesterday when militants launched an attack in Diyarbakir, injuring a police officer and the deputy mayor in the southeastern city.
In comments made after meeting Iranian First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref and parliamentary speaker Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel, the Turkish prime minister hinted he had secured Tehran's promise to outlaw the PKK and its successor.
Erdogan was asked by a Turkish reporter whether Iran had formally agreed to list the group as a terrorist organization: "You know that with regard to the issue of terrorism, Iran and Turkey have decided to adopt a common stance. [On 29 July], we will sign a memorandum of understanding pertaining to this issue. This memorandum will be signed in such a way that the Kongra-Gel/PKK terrorist organization will find its place in it with many details."
Iranian officials have not specifically commented on the expected deal. Iran's official IRNA news agency yesterday quoted Aref as simply saying both sides are confident security talks will lead to "good results."
Turkish commentators believe an agreement to join forces against Kurdish fighters would -- at least in theory -- represent a milestone in bilateral ties. In the past, the two countries have blamed each other for sheltering respective Kurdish militants, but have moved recently to improve uneasy relations.
Turkey has long suspected Iran of secretly supporting the PKK.
Tehran, in turn, blames Ankara for allegedly offering shelter to the left-wing Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran and a rival group known, in short, as Komala.
Yet, both capitals have moved to cooperate on security issues.
Iran earlier in July launched a crackdown on PKK militants holed up along its border with Turkey. Turkey's NTV private television station reported at the time that six Kurdish fighters and 10 Iranian troops were killed in the operation. Tehran officially admitted to the death of 10 Kurdish peshmergas and only two of its soldiers.
What prompted Iran -- which itself faces U.S. accusations of sponsoring terrorism -- to move against the PKK is unclear.
Erdogan yesterday praised Tehran's new stance: "We've seen that Iran favors the creation of a joint platform against terrorism, whatever its origins. With regard [to terrorism], they have paid a heavy price in the past. So have we. We don't want to pay such a price any longer."
Also uncertain is what joint steps Ankara and Tehran could possibly take against left-wing Kurdish militants.
The English-language "Turkish Daily News" yesterday quoted Firuz Dowlatabadi, Iran's ambassador to Ankara, as saying joint military operations would require too much paperwork and organization to be conceivable in the near future.
Meanwhile, some both in Turkey and Iran appear to be questioning Tehran's commitment to defeat the PKK.
Bahram Valadbeigi, who runs the Tehran-based Kurdish Cultural Center, told Radio Farda today that he believes Iran's agenda does not necessarily coincide with Turkey's: "The Islamic Republic of Iran is not completely against the PKK. It has always had some limited and vague relations with it. I don't believe Iran will take part in Turkey's plans."
Reporting on Erdogan's talks with Iran's first vice president,
the liberal "Sabah" daily today struck an ironic note: "Whatever
Erdogan had to say -- be it on the PKK, Cyprus, or Palestine -- Aref
invariably replied: 'We agree'." 
2. - Turkish Daily News - "Mazlum-Der: PKK should be discussed in Ankara, not Tehran":
ANKARA / 30 July 2004
Human rights organization Mazlum-Der said yesterday that Turkish officials should discuss the issue of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Ankara rather than with Iranian officials in Tehran.
The statement issued by Mazlum-Der Chairman Ayhan Bilgen in Ankara was an apparent criticism of talks between Turkish and Iranian officials during Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's two-day visit to Iran that ended on Thursday.
Erdogan urged Iran to designate the PKK a "terrorist organization", and a memorandum of understanding on the issue was expected to be signed by the two countries.
"Brave steps should be taken to stop clashes in certain regions, and the government should take the initiative. The PKK issue should be discussed in Ankara before Tehran," he said, without elaborating.
Clashes with the PKK, which also goes by the name Kongra-Gel,
have increased recently after the group declared an end to a five-year-old
cease-fire last month.
3. - Bianet.org - "’EU Inspired Laws Remain
on Paper’":
The number of detentions increase as prosecutions decrease after
the adoption of the Seventh Reform Package to broaden the right to reunion
and demonstration, says MAZLUMDER, a pro-Islamist Turkish human rights
organization.
ISTANBUL / 29 July 2004
Since the adoption of the Seventh Reform Package the number of detentions are on the rise and the amendments are yet to lead to a drop in the number of violations of civil rights, says MAZLUMDER, a pro-Islamist Turkish human rights organization.
The group calls upon citizens who believe that they have been unjustly detained open a case of indemnity against the government. The law which provides that the government should compensate for unjust detentions could then function in the direction of protecting the right to reunion and demonstration, they argue.
1650 detentions in one year
According to a recent report by MAZLUMDER since the adoption of the Seventh reform Package on July 30, 2003, 1650 people were detained in a year during meetings and demonstrations.
In the first seven months of 2004, including those 450 during the July NATO summit in Istanbul, 1200 people were detained, the report says.
According to the report, only a few detainees had legal investigation for their cases: “Although there are legal changes, the enforcement of the law has worsened, and this shows that amendments are not enough to protect personal rights and liberties.”
Ways to guarantee the rights
The right to reunion and demonstration could be protected by legal and administrative sanctions, MAZLUMDER belives. For this reason “indemnity law that provides compensation to illegally arrested persons,” gains importance, they say.
The MAZLUMDER report mentions that Seyma Doguncu, who was tried and acquitted by the 2. Uskudar Criminal Court for violating law 2911, won her case for indemnity: “This law is important for preventing violations of civil rights related to reunion and demonstration.“The law is fine but there are problems with the implementation.”
MAZLUMDER’s report said, “Albeit permission is not necessary for enjoying the right to organize reunion and demonstration, this principle is abrogated in application.”
MAZLUMDER, also criticizes a provision of the law that requires “the mayor to determine the place and the route of reunion and demonstration.”
“The main purpose of reunion and demonstration is to give a message to the public and the determination of its place by the authorities contradicts with the aim of the right, leading to its isolation from the public.”
Citizens are not potential criminals
The report points to the fact that officials are inclined to interpret the requirement for an advance notice to inform the date and place of the reunion and demonstration as “an application for taking-giving permission” whereas the purpose is to provide public security for the participants in the event.
“The necessary security measures, contrary to the purpose of the law, are interpreted as seeing the organizers as potential criminals and thus leading to cancellation or postponement of some events.”
MAZLUMDER report, relying on sample cases, displays that
difficulties and violations become more frequent in some regions during
certain periods in the implementation of the right to reunion and demonstration.
(BB/MN/EK)
4. - Bianet.org - "NGOs Meet Commissioner Verheugen
on Turkey":
IPA concerned about dangers threatening publishers in lead up to consideration
of Turkey’s membership in the EU.
GENEVA / 26 July 2004
The International Publishers Association (IPA) is deeply concerned about the dangers that threaten Turkish publishers when pursuing their profession.
"We call upon the Turkish authorities to implement the many reforms that were passed. Implementation is key and must not surrender to bureaucratic conservatism or any other hurdle," says Ana-Maria Cabanellas, President of the IPA.
On 15 July 2004, eight international NGOs met with Enlargement Commissioner Günter Verheugen in Brussels to discuss the progress made by Turkey in the field of Human Rights.
The Commission will issue a recommendation this September on whether EU member states should start membership negotiations with Turkey in December 2004 or not.
It is indeed in December that Heads of States and Governments will decide on this. They have already indicated that they would follow the recommendation issued by the Commission.
The IPA recalled that last year 43 books were banned and 37 writers and 17 publishers were put on trial. To date in 2004, at least 15 books have been banned in Turkey.
While welcoming the legislative and constitutional changes in Turkey, the IPA expressed its three main concerns:
1. The legal impediments to the practice of the right to freedom of expression in Turkey;
2. The current tendency of Turkish Security Courts to harass writers, journalists and publishers by putting them on trial more and more often, fining them or just postponing their trials indefinitely;
3. The lack of implementation of legal reforms regarding freedom of expression.
Lars Grahn, Chairman of IPA’s Freedom to Publish Committee, says,
"The six following taboos are obvious hurdles to freedom of expression and to publishing in Turkey: Position of the Military, Kurdish Question, Armenian Genocide, Kemalism, Women’s Liberation and Islamic Law.
"Treating writers, journalists and publishers as potential terrorists or criminals and judging them in the same courts as drug traffickers and/or real terrorists is unacceptable." (YE)
* The IPA press statement was released on July 19, 2004
5. - Central Daylight Time - "Eurasia and Europe should Cooperate against America":
According to Russian strategist Alexandr Dugin*, geopolitics as a philosophy of location is one of the most fundamental instruments that the postmodern age has developed against the historicism of modernity.
29 July 2004
Dugin has attempted to make the global status of Russia meaningful among generations, in the framework of geopolitics that he defines as mankind's mutual dealing with location.
Russia had taken the stage as an empire due to its historical and cultural accumulation and its geostrategic position on the world stage. In his opinion, the only way to maintain the claim of the Russian Empire, that stands between civilizations, as an Asian and a European force, is to reinvigorate Eurasian geopolitics. Eurasianism is an indispensable strategy not only for Russia but also for the ascension of Atlantic-oriented, Eurasian forces against the Western alliance. In this interview, Dugin stresses his prospects on regional forces, Turkey in particular, precautions to be taken against the East and West, and the future in general.
The European Union (EU) completed its fifth enlargement process on May 1, 2004. In contrast to the previous ones, the main components of this enlargement consisted of the relatively poor Eastern and Central European countries. This enlargement extended the European geography from Helsinki to Valetta, Lisbon to Budapest. How do you evaluate the expansion of the EU into Russia's territory?
In general, I could say that I am on the side of a greater Europe. It could be a kind European Union possibly turning into a geopolitical pool, or a power balancing the American hegemony. An independent, powerful and united European Union is a unique opportunity to create a multi-polar world. However, there are two major powers within the EU: One is the Euro-Atlantic countries -- England, Portugal, Spain and some Eastern countries. In this group, England and the United States are the active powers. This group is against Russia and Eurasia, and its strategy is to cause continuous tension between the European West and the Eurasian East. The EU has two identities. One, as I have already said, is Euro-Atlantic and the second is the Berlin-Paris continental EU identity. The latter is independent from the Atlantic countries, powerful and democratic and tries to establish a European empire as an ally of both the United States and Eurasia. There is a secret disagreement between these two groups. The Eastern Europeans, the most recent members, have strengthened the Atlantic wing. But these countries, for some historical reasons, have stood up against Russia. Hence, we as Eurasians, the great and democratic European supporters,, view the most recent members in the Union standing up against Russia as a step against Eurasia itself. Therefore, in general, it is nice to see that these members are under the effect of the EU. It is already impossible to be a member.
How do you evaluate the situation of Russia, caught between the Greater Middle East Project and Europe? As a creator who established Eurasianism in thought, is it possible for Eurasianism to be an alternative to the great powers on top of the power hierarchy in the international system?
The United States aims to create a mono-polar world it can easily dominate and dictate its own geopolitical agenda. Since it has difficulty in doing this, crises have been experienced in the international system. As an alternative to this, we advocate a new multi-polar world, that is based on cooperation with Europe, Eurasia and the Pacific. We believe it is necessary that Eurasia, Europe and Russia play fundamental roles in this process.
What is the Russian viewpoint or that of the Eurasians on the Greater Middle East Project?
This is a ploy by the U.S. ultra-imperialist New Conservatives (neo-Cons), "the think-tanks" close to the Cheney-Bush circle. The plan is to wipe out Islam from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the other countries and to form regions directly controlled by the U.S. Turkey's role in this anti-Arab and anti-Islam play is to mediate as Bush mentioned in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit in Istanbul. But America does have the instruments to make this dream materialize. Apart from the Middle East, I am worried about our entering a larger conflict zone. It appears that the future of the world order will shape up according to the initiatives in this area.
What kind of message was Putin trying to deliver to the United States by not attending the NATO Summit in Istanbul?
The fate of NATO also resembles that of the EU. It has been divided into two groups; the pro-Atlantic and the pro-European. The summit in Istanbul organized under the headline, "Enforcement of the pro-transatlantic domination plans," also witnessed a diversity in opinion that manifested itself in the verbal quarrel between [Jacques] Chirac and [George W.] Bush. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin recognizes and supports the continental identity of NATO and seeks cooperation; but he cannot be enthused over NATO, that has a pro-transatlantic role, and will never be.
U.S. forces have been staging military maneuvers in the Caspian Sea. Can you evaluate their interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq by considering the effects on Russia? How will Russia probably react to this?
We need to take into consideration the U.S. tools in forming a mono-polar world. Just as Great Britain performed in the "Great Play" against the Soviets years ago, America now plans to control the Caucasus, Central Asia and other strategic areas, that are of importance to their aims. U.S. bases set up in Central Asia and at other similar points after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, have been established in strategic areas in Eurasia under the canopy of the fight against international terrorism. The strategists in Russia are being temped to perceive this as a challenge to Russia's national benefits. The other problem is that Russia is not strong enough to deal with America. If so, what should be done? To embark upon a diplomatic resistance against the United States by utilizing its diplomatic efficiency in Afghanistan, Arab countries and Central Asia is the best solution. Yet, Russia and Eurasia cannot display any efficiency without the support of European countries. They are supposed to develop alternative visions mutually.
You talked about the fight against international terrorism a few minutes ago. Do you believe that such a threat exists?
International terrorism is a kind of excuse that U.S. strategists are making so as to fill the counter- power vacuum that surfaced after the Soviet Empire became history. They needed a new enemy image in order to create a new world order. This is not a vehicle being used for massive propaganda; but at the same time, a strategic component of the United States to demonstrate its military might at any place in the world. Hence, the U.S. has has the opportunity to prove its military superiority, using the so-called fight against international terrorism as an excuse. Of course, there is terrorism and terrorists; however, this is not the kind of global enemy that America claims, in its bid to consolidate its global domination. To emphasize a point, we do not mean that we support or ignore terrorism. Please, note the distortions made by the United States.
Then, can we conclude that America is trying to use international terrorism because communism has been taken out of the scene?
Now the circumstances have changed a little. The communist world was a whole and it was concrete, while international terrorism is a global phenomenon. The United States has accepted the role of the world's policeman. Yet, what it does is mask the new American strategy based on imperial domination.
We often hear Putin talking about the threat of international terrorism, using almost the same jargon as Bush. How would you comment on this?
This is a political game and what is to be said has to be said. The United States and Russia seem to use the same jargon but what they talk about is different from each other. When America discusses international terrorism, we understand that it indeed tries to conceal the plans relevant to global domination, while Russia talks about the enemies fighting to disrupt stability in Eurasia and going beyond their limits. Russian military strategists perceive the U.S.-led NATO as commanding independent countries and bringing some radical groups to the fore.
How would Turkey contact Russia if the Turks played a role in the Greater Middle East Project? Would there be any tension in the region if Turkey cooperated with the United States?
Yes, there would, because Turkey has a double identity, a capacity to identify its regional strategies and position and an opportunity to deal with both Eurasia and Europe. In this way, Turkey is able to play a positive role independent of the Atlantic; but if it becomes a tool in the U.S. Greater Middle East Project, then Turkey would run the risk of having no agreement with both Russia and Europe. America plans to use Turkey not only against the Arab-Muslim Middle Eastern countries but also against Europe. A pro-American Turkey cannot solve any problem in the region, ideologically or strategically. Moreover, such an attempt will strain relations with Russia, Europe as well as with Islamic countries. As Turkey has an active role, it needs to shape its diplomatic relations in a Eurasian sense. As long as it follows the Greater Middle East policy through the path that America has modified, Turkey will be recognized as a second Israel. Turkey is expected to exert more intellectual and cultural efforts.
Already, the Turkish government - more often than not - has disclosed that it does not view the issue of being an American model affirmatively, and approaches the matter from the perspective of cooperation.
The United States is at the peak of its power, hence, European countries and Russia are not able to resist American policies as Turkey does. For the time being, there is nothing that can be done other than accepting the American projects. For this reason, Putin did not go against the U.S. bases in Central Asia. I can see that Turkey has partially accepted America's proposal, because, this is a realpolitik choice. However, it is certain that Turkey does not consist of the government alone. We know that Turkey has a complex social structure and the power of the army, political parties and religious inclination can easily be perceived. The Turkish public protested against the NATO Summit and adopted a position like the Eurasians. This is because the Turkish government could not explicitly recognize the strategy as Putin did. That is why the government's pragmatist steps should be viewed with understanding.
What is Russia's attitude towards Chechnya? Is it possible for Russia to change its policy towards this country?
Moscow has triumphed militarily in Chechnya but not politically. We could not explain to them why they had to remain within the borders of Russia and make them feel that they had a place within those borders. To solve the problem by military means rather than by political means was the greatest mistake of the Putin government. We propose a "Eurasian solution" on the Chechnya issue. Russia needs to offer Chechens the "Eurasian Plan for Chechnya." Chechens are active, brave and proud people. Chechen separatists are also supposed to be integrated into the Eurasia vision we mentioned before. Russia should better respect its good enemies and make them integrate into the Eurasia vision for a better future. Otherwise, much more chaos will be experienced.
Do you think that relations between Russia and Turkey change fast? Because, the Russian attitude towards us on the Cyprus issue six months ago was very severe. The Russian foreign minister, the day before, signed the conclusion report in which Mehmet Ali Talat used the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus prime minister's status at the Islamic Development Organization meeting. The chief adviser in the Prime Ministry, Ahmet Davutoglu, had mentioned in one of his speeches, an official meeting that Putin will embark upon in six months' time. If it comes true, a Russian president will visit Turkey for the first time in 30 years. Do you think this relation is a kind of marriage of convenience?
Russia's strategy of perceiving Turkey as an enemy changed after the Cold War ended. Turkey used to be America's ally in this double-polar world. But we are now in a mono-polar world and Turkey has many more alternatives than before. As a matter of fact, Turkey and Russia are located in a triangle as being both Eurasian and Western as well as Eastern countries. That is why Ankara and Russia strive to perceive each other as regional partners. Russia has changed its perspective ever since Turkey discovered the Eurasian dimension. I believe that Ahmet Davutoglu (a member of the Independent Industrialists and Businessmen Association) is aware of the Eurasia potential. There are some groups studying the Eurasian vision in Turkey. Hitherto, Russia totally used to support the Greek side on the Cyprus issue. But now the parameters have changed. The importance the Turkish Cypriots give to their independence is already well known; yet, Turkey, like other countries, is aware that its characteristics are being threatened by the wind of globalization in this mono-polar world where America is the sole leader. The same applies to Russia. Then, wouldn't it be abnormal for the two countries to strive in seeking a new alliance that would not mean a kind of colonialism or expansionism; but a kind of cooperation awakening democracy and finding specific solutions to the problems of the multi-polar world.
* Aleksandr Dugin was born in Moscow in 1962. Dugin,
whose writings and publications on strategic and geopolitical topics
are admired, has been a top adviser in the Russian Parliament (Duma)
since 1999. He is also popular for being one of the important strategists
within the Putin circle. He established his Eurasian Party in 2001 and
took over the leadership. Then, he began to publish the 'Eurasian Observer'
newspaper. He has been a columnist in some national publication organs
such as Izvetia, Literaturnaya Gazeta and Vremya Novostey since 2002.
Dugin, known to be the most active Russian philosopher, is also popular
as one of the greatest advocates of Eurasianism. He speaks nine languages
and is married with two children.
6. - Hurriyet - "Barroso: Decision on Turkey Will Be Made Soon":
30 July 2004
New Chairman of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Durao Barroso who will be in charge on November, 1 said that he was against the enlargement of the European Union in near future.
After his chairmanship was approved by the European Parliament,
Barroso talked at a press conference, saying that the date which the
negotiations would commence with Turkey, would be decided soon. Referring
to the Balkan countries, Barroso said that EU should further its relations
with these countries within the framework of neighborhood policy.