|
Kurdish Human Rights In Turkey
Fourth international conference on EU, Turkey and the Kurds
European Parliament, Brussels
3-4 December 2007
================
Layla Zana's and Ahmet Türk's speech at EP (original text)
3 December 2007
Brussels
Esteemed Friends, dear participants,
ABHaber 03.12.2007 Brussels
Firstly, I would like to thank everyone in the organising bodies for
their contributions to this conference. As it is known, internal peace
in Turkey is the greatest guarantee for peace in Europe,
the Middle East and the world. I would like to reiterate that I find
such events, where the Kurdish issue is analysed extensively, and in
which all parties’ different components can participate with original
views and proposals, valuable.
My last visit to the European
Parliament was on the occasion of the Sakharov Prize award ceremony. On
that day, I had started my speech in the brother language Turkish and
had continued in Kurdish where I wanted to once again underscore the
brotherhood of peoples, languages and cultures. Today I want to speak
to you in Kurdish only. This time, it is not because I do not want to
emphasise brotherhood among peoples, but because I want to draw your
attention once more to efforts of resurrecting the fear of mother
tongue. In fact, I find it a matter of embarrassment for Turkey
that people are still being tried in courts for speaking in their
mother tongue. I believe that this emphasis I am making on the Kurdish
language at a time when a democratic and civil constitution is under
debate will be evaluated by you not as an important detail but as a
primary request.
During the intervening time period many conferences were held both within the European Parliament and also in Turkey on the issues of EU, Turkey
and the Kurds. As these meetings on the themes of peace and solutions
were held, various and original initiatives by the intellectuals were
undertaken, signature campaigns were launched and press declarations
were made, all these turned into a common agenda of all those whose
hearts were beating for an honourable, just and lasting peace with the
aim of putting an end to deaths. However, sufficient honesty and
sincerity could not be demonstrated for ending deaths.
The lock is there, the key is known but the door just won’t open. It is
high time the door is opened. The important thing is to place the key
in the lock properly. Everything hinges on an issue which I reminded
you of just recently with insistence and emphasis but something that I
have frankly got tired of reminding everyone...The key issue has to do
with how the issue is defined, the approach and outlook to the issue.
The issue does not stem from any problem of public order, security,
hunger or socio-economic backwardness. Everything you try to strip of
its identity is doomed to become more painful and complex as examples
demonstrate in other countries. Unless we are able to debate the very
name of the issue correctly, the multifaceted crisis of identity and
social crisis will drown us all in an ocean of stalemates. If the
Kurdish issue were solely an issue of poverty and security, wouldn’t
the methods that have been tried for over half a century been not only
decisive but would also have lead to results? Haven’t all methods
including beatings, detentions, torture, executions, forced migrations,
sending to forced exile, extra judicial killings, village evacuations,
village guards, release based on confessions, pardon based on apology
been tried? These are indeed only those methods that are known and
explained in a loud and clear manner by the highest authorities. What
about methods that not known or disclosed? I believe my memory which is
writhing and reeling in pain will not allow me to remember and recount
all of the ones that have been tried.
Despite all these denials, this treatment with contempt, debasement and
even being expelled from their land, Kurds did not get cross. They were
heartbroken but believed it was a virtue not to complain about it. They
were beaten but instead of taking revenge by beating back they insisted
on a country where all existing differences would survive. They did not
hold one blood more supreme than the other, one language superior to
the other, one colour better than the other. They were not on the side
of those who thrived on conflict and bloodshed between peoples. On the
contrary, when the ringleaders were yelling and shouting to arouse,
they maintained their modesty by remaining silent. They yearned and are
still yearning for a policy of sensitivity and stability where common
values are symbolised in an honourable, just and lasting solution.
Destruction, denial must not be the only way.
Then, it is not possible to change the issue by taking its causes and
effects separately and independently from each other. Instead of
dividing, pulling into pieces or scattering it, we should set off
primarily by defining it correctly. We should reach an agreement that
we cannot solve the problem through clichés, a policy of condemnation
and damnation, by closing political parties, by increasing the number
of investigations and arrests, by preventing civil politics, by raising
the bar even higher on bans and prohibitions and more importantly, by
regarding deaths of people as mere statistical data. Otherwise our
losses will not decrease but will unfortunately increase. In fact, even
the developments experienced in the specific context of Kurds in Turkey and legal politics are enough to demonstrate this.
Along this direction, the number of our duties and responsibilities are
on the increase. In addition to Kurds, the responsibility of the European Union
and the Turkish Government cannot be underestimated. But the unison of
discourse between the EU and the Turkish government spokespersons
aggravate the issue rather than alleviating it. On the contrary, what
is expected is to remind Turkey
of its responsibilities concerning the Kurdish issue and ensuring that
this should not remain at the level of a reminder alone. Undoubtedly,
the solution to the Kurdish issue should be specific to Turkey. But during the process of finding a solution not everything should be expected of Turkey and the existing inner dynamics in Turkey. The aim should not be putting pressure but creating synergies by offering a contribution. Contribution to Turkey
could not be through the unison created in discourse. It should be
known that an “EU Member Turkey”, which will have solved the Kurdish
issue in a manner that is in congruence with contemporary civilisations
and the new world order will not only remain as a rising star but it
will also be transformed into a facilitating force in the realisation
of world peace.
What are these responsibilities then? Despite
all these adverse developments, I believe the historic opportunity that
was seized in 1999 for a democratic and peaceful solution to the
Kurdish issue is still there. The world should stop avoiding the
recognition of political, social and cultural democratic rights of
Kurds whose population is over 40 million. Instead of a definition of
citizenship which defines everyone as Turkish, the existing phobia
against placing under legal protection all natural rights emanating
from peoples’ original characteristics. Instead of focusing on
denigrating concepts such as “pardon based on apology”, amnesty, pardon
or the like, we should be speaking about quality and comprehensive
projects with content. Enabling political detainees, intellectuals,
writers and politicians who have been relegated to forced or voluntary
exile to participate in the political life should be regarded as a step
to facilitate a solution. Radical reforms in Turkey’s political and
administrative structure will accelerate and strengthen the process of
democratisation. For ways to be developed in finding solutions to
problems, enhancement of local administrations will ease the process.
Values that Kurds as
a people do not hesitate to emphasise out loud or even regard as
untouchable even if the price they have to pay is heavy should never be
ignored. This is because the primary duty of politicians and those who
give direction to politics is not merely to listen to the values and
requests of the people. Being able to be the tongue and voice of the
people requires that the untouchable values of the people are expressed
clearly and honestly. In this process which is evolving towards a
solution, the Kurdish people find the role of Mr Öcalan extremely
important and effective within the framework of social peace and the
togetherness of peoples. In fact, this is not expressed by Kurds alone.
Prominent writers in Turkey draw attention to the fact that “the first radical step in seeking a solution would be a comprehensive agreement with Öcalan”.
It is time we started talking about our problems by doing away with our
taboos. Regarding that the sensitivities of people are noteworthy makes
a lasting peace possible. What is expected of the world is to respect
this will and exclude it from bargaining issues in international
relationships. Unless the issue is approached from a human perspective
and from a perspective of conscience, it will continue to be a
potential risk threatening regional and world peace. It is for this
reason that the policy of “good Kurds-bad Kurds” that has been tried
for some time has gone bankrupt. What befits a modern country is to
hand over a tradition of tolerance that will strengthen diplomatic,
cultural, economic and social relations to the future rather than
escalating tensions across borders and countries.
Dear friends,
The ties of citizenship are not only established through laws. Those
who are considered as ‘so called’ citizens, but who are in fact real
citizens in essence, despite the fact that they are tied to their
through their hearts, may really become ‘so called’ citizens tomorrow.
In a world where borders have lost their meaning, real division and
separation is that which happens in the hearts and minds. Bringing the
heart and mind together necessitates patience, fortitude, stamina,
experience and maturity. I believe we have gone over the threshold of
endurance. Just as we cannot build tomorrow by nurturing the pains of
yesterday, it is not possible to find a solution by multiplying the
pains of today either.
Just as Emin Maalouf has said, “My identity is what makes me unique and
unlike any other. Killing a person’s identity is a murder that is
graver than killing him.” Every identity that is killed is in fact a
loss for humanity. We should therefore capture the pluralism that will
nurture those differences. It should be known that every identity that
is murdered is our own murder regardless of what our language, religion
or identity might be.
Believing that you will approach the problem with sensitivity I extend my love to you...
Leyla Zana
-================================================
====================================================
Ahmet Turk
Turkey,
since the beginning of reform and modernisation, has diverted its
efforts towards a new democratic structure with the aim of EU
accession. I believe that Turkey’s attempt of accession into the EU is
the fourth most important strategic decision in the history of the
republic. The first decision is the strategic cooperation of the Turks
and Kurds in building a country which materialises itself in the
creation of the republic. This joint decision of the people is
certainly historic one. What is achieved here is the joint
determination in creating a country which upholds the equality and
freedom of each citizen.
The post-republic strategic
cooperation between the Kurds and Turks is the second strategically
significant decision. This is the period of 1921-1924 and at this
present time this period is looked at as the “golden age”. The first
parliament was deemed to be a joint parliament of Kurds and Turks.
Representation was according to identity and region. In fact Mustafa
Kemal himself believed that the Kurds should be allowed a special
status and even made the statement “a type of village headmanship” (the
most local type of government). This is a most notable period we can
refer to, to tackle current problems and debates.
The third significant strategic decision is: within the atmosphere
stated above instead of furthering the republic democratically, the
strategic cooperation with the Kurds was cut short and the period of
conflict began. The decision for an oligarchic republic is an
unfortunate decision that is yet to be rectified. For 80 years this is
the period we have been unable to change, bring to an end or even made
enough effort to rectify this painful and hostile republic period. I
cannot continue without stressing the role of the responsibilities of
certain influential international powers of the time who are in fact
now members of the EU. The Kurdish problem was left right in the middle
like a corpse and was sacrificed in the pursuit of international
interests.
What I am about to talk about is a chance for redemption for the
mistakes of the past; this is the fourth significant strategic
decision. European countries must be able to redeem themselves for the
mistakes they have made in the past against not only the Kurdish people
but against the Turkish people as well. For the first time in the
history of the republic Turkey mad a strategic decision towards the aim of democracy; this was membership to the EU.
This is the most important decision in turning away from the chaos and
mentality of the Middle East and making a move towards western
civilisation. Since the day of its creation our country has not been
able to solve its social and structural problems and has not been able
to solve the conflicts arising from these problems within a democratic
framework. However, eventually it has materialised its efforts to
modernise through the intention of EU membership. To this end, it has
made changes at the level of reform. This process must continue.
However, we know that the efforts of external dynamics will not be
enough on its own to implement the fourth strategic decision to
institutionalise a diverse democracy. At exactly this point I would
like to refer to the fifth significant decision that Turkey now has to make. The makers of this decision are our peoples.
This is the question: will a togetherness of a thousand years and a
strategic cooperation of 500 years be revitalised within the framework
of modern values? Or, will there be a split as a result of deepened
conflict?
This strategic decision will be taken by our peoples. I repeat, unity through
cooperation, or, complete separation?
The Prime Minister asks us “make your preference, take your decision”,
it is not as easy as this. We, on the one hand, are talking about the
time for the Kurds and Turks to make a strategic decision, the Prime
Minister, on the other hand, is still in the pursuit of basic daily
political interests.
Us Kurds believe in a solution within
democratic unity and making policies to this end. If a meaning is given
to our presence in the parliament, then it should be within the
framework of our passion for unity. DTP should be recognised as the
strongest legal representatives of the Kurds who have had a problem
defining themselves within the republic that has had trouble with
democratization. Our ideology has a single aim and that is to
democratise this republic that we created together and to reignite the
Kurdish-Turkish unity on the grounds of modern values. Within
parliamentary politics we should take on board our joint history and
values, while not using our sensitivities as mere tools for political
gain but rather approaching them with care so that we can achieve
veracity in parliament. Our hope is for others to approach us in this
way.
Unfortunately, since the very beginning, primarily through the Prime
Minister, we have been bombarded with calls of “terror-condemnation” in
order to not be able to produce policies. Actually, our view on
violence is extremely clear. Once again I do not hesitate to declare
that we are against political violence of all means, whoever or
wherever it comes from. Our era does not accept politics as a means for
political progress. We do not approve of violence as a means to a
solution. However, we do acknowledge that there is a social problem
that causes violence, namely the Kurdish problem; however, we believe
it should reach a democratic solution. If we do not offer politics as a
route to a solution for our people then we cannot prevent the violence.
The DTP’s role cannot be overlooked. We offer the
Kurdish people a route to solve their problems, which range from the
cultural to the economic, through a legal mechanism. It is evident that
if we did not exist then this people will always find a way to express
itself. The prudence the DTP has created cannot be overlooked.
We entered the elections to offer civil advice for the solution to
Turkey’s basic problems. We were chosen and therefore took up a very
important and responsible role. We possess the will and the will power
to solve the Kurdish problem within the framework of democracy and
compromise. However, we are yet to find an appropriate addressee. DTP
is principled enough and confident enough to not accept any
preconditions. Pressure on degenerating the DTP to something it is not
is unacceptable. We have to play our role within our political
identity.
Our projects for a solution are waiting for their
addressees. The base for a civil and democratic solution has been
created through the admission talks of accession into the EU. A
definition of citizenship without the use of ethnicity is a big step
towards success. Alongside Turkish as the official and education
language, Kurdish must also be constitutionally guaranteed as a
language of education. Freedom of expression and association, political
party and election laws should be rearranged in accordance with EU
norms. Local government reforms should immediately be in accordance
with EU local government conditioning and a transfer of certain central
powers to the local governments should be ensured. In this sense the
changes in the administrative mechanism should be made. The EU should
play its responsible role buy supporting and lobbying these changes to
go through.
It has been speculated that the DTP’s proposal of a democratic and
cultural autonomy is not adaptable to Turkey’s democracy. However, this
is a process. If the democratic reforms and social change widens, our
proposal will be better understood and appropriate. We believe in
democratic unity and it is our belief that our proposal of democratic
autonomy is a unifying project. It carries similarities with the EU,
and with certain EU countries and their practice.
I need to put forward one final thing. If politics is a rational
phenomenon than we need to adapt our proposals and foresights according
to this. If the PKK and Abdullah Ocalan are not seen as part of the
problem and are not incorporated into the process of a solution, then
we cannot be sure of a solution, because it is not possible. We have to
take note of someone that has the sympathy of Millions and an
organisation with the manpower of 6-7 thousand armed fighters. I do not
see this as a problem of addressees or legitimacy. However, a solution
without Ocalan and the PKK has been a policy for years but has not even
hinted at a successful option. However much we term them as
“terror-terrorist”, we cannot deny that they are without a doubt
holders of an important political and military significance. With this
rationale, we must find a way in which the armed fighters can be
included into this democratic process. This in the same time will
ensure the unity of Kurds and Turks as the rationalisation of the past
takes place. We must put trust in the path of intellect and knowledge…
We may not be of the same religion, or speak the same language, but we
share the same world and the same philosophy of peace. You should have
no concern regarding our passion to modernise the values of the
humanist philosophy for which Jesus Christ had sacrificed himself for.
If we want to be judged by God with lesser sins, then we must be as
passionate as Jesus in working hard to ensure the honoured peace
between the peoples.
Ahmet Turk
ABHaber 03.12.2007 Brussels
Fourth international conference on EU, Turkey and the Kurds (original text)
European Parliament, Brussels
3/4 December 2007 -
In memory of the Kurdish Writer Mehmed Uzun
Patrons
Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, South Africa
Dr. Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Iran
Harold Pinter, Nobel Literature Prize Laureate, UK
Bianca Jagger, Council of Europe Goodwill Ambassador & Chair of the World Future Council, UK
Noam Chomsky, Professor, Writer, USA
Yasar Kemal, Writer, Turkey
Leyla Zana, EP Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought & the Rafto Prize, Turkey
Monday, 3 December 2007, 15h00-16h00
Opening Session, Room ASP 1G3
Opening remarks
Ms. Kariane Westrheim, Chair of the "European Union Turkey Civic
Commission" (EUTCC) and Associate Professor at the University of
Bergen, Norway
Mr. Kerim Yildiz, Executive Director, Kurdish Human Rights Project (KHRP) and Board Member of EUTCC, UK
Opening Speeches
Ms. Leyla Zana, EP Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, Rafto Prize, Turkey
Ms. Bianca Jagger, Council of Europe Goodwill Ambassador, UK
Mr. Francis Wurtz, MEP, Chair GUE/NGL Group in the EP, France
Monday, 3 December 2007, 16h00-18h30
Session I,
DEMOCRATISATION IN TURKEY AND "EU REFORM PROCESS":
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND KURDS
Moderators:
Mr Jan Beghin, Member of the Brussels Parliament, SP.A-Spirit, Board Member of EUTCC, Belgium, and Mr Jon Rud, Lawyer
a. .EU-Turkey Accession talks and Turkish membership of the EU – developments and future prospects
• Mr Kerim Yildiz, Executive Director, Kurdish Human Rights Project
(KHRP) and Board Member of EUTCC, UK (on behalf of the EUTCC)
• Mr. Joost Lagendijk, MEP, Co-Chairman of the EU-Turkey Joint
Parliamentary Committee, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance,
The Netherlands
b. Democratic transformation – the implementation of legal and constitutional reforms
• Mr. Akin Ozcer, former Turkish Diplomat
c. Can Turkey become a full member of the EU before a Resolution of the Kurdish Issue?
• Mr. Ahmet Turk, MP, Democratic Society Party (DTP), Turkey
• Mr. Vittorio Agnoletto, MEP, Confederal Group of the European United
Left - Nordic Green Left, Coordinator of the EP-Kurdish Friendship
Group, Italy
Questions and discussion, closing remarks by moderators
Tuesday, 4 December 2007, 09h30-11h15
Session II,
HUMAN RIGHTS, FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TURKISH ACCESSION TO EU
Moderators: Mr. Hans Branscheidt, Board Member of EUTCC, and Ms. Jill Evans, MEP,
Vice-President of Plaid Cymru, UK
A. The Ilisu Dam project: Environmental, social and political impact. Building support for the Save Hasankeyf Campaign
• Ms. Rachel Bernu, Kurdish Human Rights Project (KHRP), UK
• Mr. Emilio Molinari, World Contract for Water, Italy
B. Human rights - commitment and implementation
• Mr. Ibrahim Bilmez, Lawyer, Turkey
C. Democratic decentralisation and local governance
• Mr. Nurettin Demirtas, co-president DTP, Turkey
D. The role of women in the struggle for democracy and peace
• Ms. Pelguzar Kaygusuz, Democratic Society Party (DTP), Women Section, Turkey
• Ms. Margaret Owen, Barrister, Founder Member of GAPS (Gender Action
for Peace and Security) and member of the Bar Human Rights Committee, UK
Questions and discussion, closing remarks by moderators
Tuesday, 4 December 2007, 11h15 - 13h00
Session III,
ONGOING CONFLICT & ACCESSION PROCESS
Moderators: Ms. Jean Lambert, MEP UK, Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
Vice-Chairwoman, and Bairbre de Brun MEP, Sinn Fein, EUL-NGL Group
A.The need for dialogue: Democratic participation, political representation and civil actors
• Professor Dr. Cengiz Gulec, Member of the Peace Parliament, Turkey
• Mr. Abdullah Demirbas, Mayor-Diyarbakir-Surici, Turkey
B. Peace-making efforts and the armed conflict
• Mr. Mark Muller QC, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the KHRP,
Board member EUTCC, and Chair of the Bar Human Rights Committee, UK.
C. The Applicability of Humanitarian Law to the Current Conflict in Turkey
• Dr. Susan Breau, Reader in International Law and Assistant Associate
Dean for Research at the School of Law at the University of Surrey
D. Improving support for the peace process: The role of the EU, European governments and NGOs
• Mr. Hugh Pope, Senior Analyst, International Crisis Group, Turkey
E. Prospects for Peace and Democratic Reconciliation in Turkey: Old Mistakes and New Opportunities
• Professor Dogu Ergil, Ankara University, Turkey
Questions and discussion, closing remarks by moderators
Tuesday, 4 December 2007, 15h00-17h30
Session IV,
CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND DEMOCRATIC FUTURE
OF TURKEY AND KURDS
Moderators: Ms. Feleknas Uca, MEP Germany, GUE/NGL Group, and Mr. Andy Carl, Executive Director of "Conciliation Resources", UK
A. Lessons from international peace processes
• Dr. Clem McCartney, Independent consultant on conflict and community issues, Ireland
B. Choosing to engage: the Kurdish project
• Mr. Ali Yigit, President of Kurdistan National Congress and Ex Turkish Deputy member of DEP
C. Government policy on the Kurds in Turkey
• Professor Baskin Oran, Ankara University, Turkey
D. How the resolution of the Kurdish question can open the road for democracy in Turkey and the Middle East
• Professor Michael M. Gunter, Tennessee Technological University, USA
D. Reflections on EU and EU government’s foreign policies and the resolution Kurdish question
• Dr. Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold, Member of Swiss Parliament an Member of the Council of Europe
Questions and discussion, closing remarks by moderators
Tuesday, 4 December 2007, 17h30-18h30
Closing Session,
Discussion and Adoption of Conference Resolution
Final Remarks by the Board of the EUTCC
|
Other Articles by Vladimir van Wilgenburg (Total 48 articles)
 Show ALL Vladimir van Wilgenburg's articles
 Thanks for KurdishMedia.com
----------------------------
|
 |
