11
May 2005
1. "European Court to rule on conviction of Kurd leader by Turkey", a possible retrial for Ocalan, considered public enemy number one after leading a armed campaign which killed 37,000 people, would be seen as a test of Turkey's resolve to embrace European standards as it prepares for membership talks with the European Union on October 3.
2. "Under EU pressure, Turkey moves to improve non-Muslim property rights", the Turkish government has drafted a bill sought by the European Union to address complaints from non-Muslim religious foundations over restrictions to their property rights, Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin said Tuesday.
3. "Turkish support for accession 'flagging'", Turks' support for joining the European Union, while still strong, is falling, an opinion poll indicated on Tuesday, as resentment grows at the perceived anti-Turkish tone of Europeans during their debate on the EU constitution.
4. "AKP should recind RTÜK decision", the latest decision taken by RTÜK shows that Turkish society is seen as a flock of sheep that needs to be shepherded and that the 'This state is mine' attitude is continuing. The ruling AKP will be unable to ignore this move. The religious conservatism of the government will be blamed.
5. "Turkey - 2005 Annual report", despite the government's considerable progress in passing laws, the Turkish media is still the victim of courts that arbitrarily imprison and heavily fine journalists, forcing them into routine self-censorship over sensitive topics such as the role of the army and the country's Kurdish minority. Radio and TV is still censored by the National Broadcasting Council (RTÜK) and while pro-Kurdish journalists are still extensively harassed.
6. "Iraq: Kurdistan Government official talks to RFE/RL", RFE/RL Iraq analyst Kathleen Ridolfo interviewed the Kurdistan Regional Government’s (KRG) representative to the United Kingdom, Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, on 4 May, in response to an article on corruption in Kurdistan in "RFE/RL Iraq Report" on 2 May.
Dear Reader,
The European Human Rights Court will deliver its Grand Chamber judgement on Thursday, 12 of May 2005. Hence our whole team will be at Strasbourg on that day. As a result on Thursday, 12 of May 2005 we will be unable to publish the Flash Bulletin. The Flash Bulletin will be published as usual on Friday, 13 of May. We hope for your understanding.
1. - AFP - "European Court to rule on conviction
of Kurd leader by Turkey":
STRASBOURG / 11 May 2005
The European Court of Human Rights will deliver Thursday its ruling on an appeal by jailed Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan that could lead to his retrial in Turkey where he is serving a life-sentence.
A possible retrial for Ocalan, considered public enemy number one after leading a armed campaign which killed 37,000 people, would be seen as a test of Turkey's resolve to embrace European standards as it prepares for membership talks with the European Union on October 3.
The Strasbourg-based court is set to deliver its final verdict on a complaint by Ocalan against the legal procedures used in his 1999 trial and the conditions of his solitary detention on the Turkish prison island of Imrali in the Marmara Sea in the northwest of the country.
In March 2003, the European court, which upholds the European convention on human rights, agreed with Ocalan that his 1999 sentence came "at the outcome of an unfair trial" and amounted to inhumane treatment.
But it rejected his complaint about the conditions of his detention and the circumstances of his arrest. Both the Turkish authorities and Ocalan appealed against the rulings.
Ocalan, 56, has been the sole inmate on Imrali since his conviction as leader of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) which has led a bloody armed campaign for self-rule in south-eastern Turkey.
He was sentenced to death for treason but his sentence was later commuted to life in prison on October 3, 2002 after Turkey scrapped the death penalty in a bid to ease its entry into the European Union.
Should the European court rule in favour of Ocalan again, Turkey could be asked to review the sentence of the rebel leader.
Four Turkish parliamentarians, including Kurdish rights activist Leyla Zana, convicted of membership of the PKK in 1994 and sentenced to 15 years in prison, were given a retrial in 2003 after the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2001 that their original trial was unfair.
A possible retrial for Ocalan could prove a headache for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government's European ambitions and leave it open to fierce public and opposition criticism.
In case of a demand for retrial, most experts say the government would have to amend a 2003 law which allows for retrials for those whose convictions have been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights, but includes restrictions leaving Ocalan out of its scope.
The PKK, founded by Ocalan in 1978, waged an armed campaign against the Ankara government from 1984 to 1999.
Turkey dowplays possible retrial of Kurdish rebel leader
ANKARA / 10 May 2005
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul on Tuesday sought to play down an upcoming ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on an appeal by jailed Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan that could pave the way for his retrial.
"Turkey has nothing to be afraid of," Gul told journalists during a visit to Bucharest, Anatolia news agency reported.
"The head of a terrorist organization which has committed crimes known to the entire world will receive the same sentence even if he is tried a hundred times. I have no doubts about that."
The Strasbourg-based court is set to deliver its final verdict on May 12 on a complaint by Ocalan against the legal procedures used in his 1999 trial and the conditions of his solitary detention on the Turkish prison island of Imrali in the Marmara Sea in the northwest of the country.
In March 2003, the court agreed with Ocalan that his 1999 sentence came "at the outcome of an unfair trial" and amounted to inhumane treatment.
But it rejected his complaint about the conditions of his detention and the circumstances of his arrest. Both the Turkish authorities and Ocalan appealed against the rulings.
Should the court rule in favour of Ocalan again, Turkey could be asked to review the sentence of the rebel leader.
A possible retrial would largely be seen as a test of Turkey’s resolve to embrace European norms as it prepares to begin membership talks with the European Union on October 3.
It could also prove a headache for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government and leave it open to fierce public and opposition criticism.
In case of a demand for retrial, most experts say the government would have to amend a 2003 law which allows for retrials for those whose convictions have been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights but includes restrictions leaving Ocalan out of its scope.
Ocalan, 56, has been the sole inmate on Imrali since his trial in 1999 as the leader of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) which has led a bloody armed campaign for self-rule in southeastern Turkey.
Ocalan, considered to be public enemy number one in Turkey,
was sentenced to death for treason at the end of the trial, but his
sentence was later commuted to life in prison after Turkey scrapped
the death penalty from its books in a bid to ease its entry into the
European Union. 
2. - AFP - "Under EU pressure, Turkey moves to
improve non-Muslim property rights":
ANKARA / 10 May 2005
The Turkish government has drafted a bill sought by the European Union to address complaints from non-Muslim religious foundations over restrictions to their property rights, Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Ali Sahin said Tuesday.
"From time to time, there have been complaints from (non-Muslim) community foundations and EU officials... This bill aims to eradicate to a great extent those complaints," Sahin told reporters after a cabinet meeting.
He said the draft bill would be sent to parliament in several days, without explaining what specific measures it contained.
The EU, set to open membership talks with Turkey on October 3, has long pressed Ankara to amend legal provisions restricting the property rights of non-Muslim religious foundations in the country.
Predominantly Muslim Turkey is home to small communities of Christians, mainly Orthodox Greeks and Armenians, and Jews, most of them concentrated in Istanbul.
In an October report on Turkey’s democratization progress, the EU said that non-Muslim communities "lack legal personality, face restricted property rights and interference in the management of their foundations, and are not allowed to train clergy," even though their freedom to worship was largely unhampered.
"Their existing properties are permanently at risk
of being confiscated and attempts to recover property by judicial means
encounter numerous obstacles," the report said.
3. - Financial Times - "Turkish support for accession 'flagging'":
Turks' support for joining the European Union, while still strong, is falling, an opinion poll indicated on Tuesday, as resentment grows at the perceived anti-Turkish tone of Europeans during their debate on the EU constitution.
ANKARA / 10 May 2005 / by Vincent Boland
The poll, taken for the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP), found that 63 per cent of Turks support the country's accession to the EU, compared with 70 per cent earlier in the year and as much as 75 per cent late last year.
High public support for joining the EU emboldened the AKP to undertake two years of constitutional, political and social reforms with the aim of securing EU entry.
Turkey was rewarded last December with a formal invitation to begin the accession process. Any weakening of that public support may weaken the reform drive, some diplomats said.
Many Turks feel that a No vote in France's constitutional referendum on the constitution later this month could jeopardise the start of Ankara's accession talks on October 3.
The EU and the Turkish government insist there is no link between a possible rejection of the constitution and the start of talks.
Ruling party officials are also beginning to worry that the government is not communicating the EU process more successfully to voters.
Anti-European sentiment has also been whipped up in recent
weeks by Turkey's hard right in anticipation of a judgment, expected
tomorrow, from the European Court of Human Rights. The ruling concerns
whether Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK Kurdish rebel leader, received a fair
trial in 1999 when he was convicted of treason.
4. - Turkish Daily News - "AKP should recind RTÜK decision":
The latest decision taken by RTÜK shows that Turkish society is seen as a flock of sheep that needs to be shepherded and that the 'This state is mine' attitude is continuing. The ruling AKP will be unable to ignore this move. The religious conservatism of the government will be blamed.
10 May 2005 / by Mehmet Ali BIRAND
There are a lot of weird institutions in Turkey, but the Supreme Board of Radio and Television (RTÜK) is probably the weirdest of them all.
RTÜK is not peculiar to Turkey. Similar institutions exist in other countries; however, what makes ours so special is the people who run it and their state of mind.
If one just takes a look at their attitude over the past few years, the regulations they need to abide by and the way they interpret the law gives us the following impressions.
RTÜK members see themselves as the people who run this 70-million-strong country. They take upon themselves the executive powers of other institutions. They continue to think “This state is mine.”
RTÜK members see all Kurds living in Turkey as separatists and are creating all kinds of obstacles to prevent this community from utilizing their basic rights.
RTÜK members bend with the wind. Whenever there is a governmental change, RTÜK members take the new government's priorities into account. Just like they are doing now. They have turned themselves into the guides of morality.
This institution was founded to put an end to the confusion
in the television and radio sector. Instead of creating stability, they
have begun to damage the country.
Turkey cannot be humiliated in this way:
You all know what RTÜK has done.
It has decided to close four stations that were broadcasting erotic programs on DIGITÜRK.
How were these channels watched?
After 11:30 p.m., people had to pay to watch these programs that were otherwise encrypted.
Why were they closed?
Let's hear it from RTÜK Chairman Fatih Karaca: “People were able to pay just a few lira to watch these programs. Many citizens filed complaints about finding their children watching these shows after midnight.”
Can you imagine a more ridiculous argument?
These stations have around 12,000 subscribers. Just because of complaints filed by a few hundred people who cannot control their children, RTÜK decides to take four TV channels off the air.
Karaca says something else that makes his state of mind blatantly obvious, namely, “Because these channels are based overseas, we are unable to fine them.”
So the easiest way to resolve the issue is to close them?
RTÜK either doesn't know what its decision means or they are trying to create a Turkey that corresponds to their mindset.
They are to decide which movies we can watch. They will look at us from above and decide what is right for us.
Don't they know that a small satellite dish is enough for everyone to watch porn channels?
Don't they realize that this decision of theirs will result in eliminating this encrypted-paid choice and will push our children to watch porn channels that are a lot worse?
The public reaction is not due to the fear of not having erotic channels to choose from; it is due to certain people believing that they have the right to interfere in our freedom any way they see fit.
That's what I am against.
RTÜK has no such right.
Indeed, let them protect society from negative influences. For example, they can ask DIGITÜRK to raise the subscription fee for these erotic channels. Ask the subscribers to prove they are adults or push the broadcast time to a later hour.
But they should not be able to ban anything.
AKP needs to deal with this matter:
Turkey is not and will never be a country closed to the outside world.
Everyone needs to know that eventually the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) will be blamed for this issue. No matter how much AKP spokesmen say, “We are also against this ban,” the decision to ban will be interpreted from overseas as reflecting the AKP's desire to create a conservative Turkey.
If the AKP doesn't want to fall into the trap laid by RTÜK, it needs to react. It needs to ensure that the RTÜK decision is annulled either by the judiciary or through other means.
Gentlemen, let us put an end to this shepherding by the
state. Stop your habit of telling the people what to do. We don't want
to be guided. We want to be governed properly. We want to rise up to
European Union standards. We reject your dark world and frame of mind.
5. - Reporters Without Borders - "Turkey - 2005 Annual report":
May 2005
Despite the government's considerable progress in passing laws, the Turkish media is still the victim of courts that arbitrarily imprison and heavily fine journalists, forcing them into routine self-censorship over sensitive topics such as the role of the army and the country's Kurdish minority. Radio and TV is still censored by the National Broadcasting Council (RTÜK) and while pro-Kurdish journalists are still extensively harassed.
The government continued its legal reforms in 2004 in efforts to meet European standards in preparation for its hoped-for admission to the European Union. Some of the changes should have positive effects for journalists. The new press law, passed in June, replaced prison sentences with heavy fines. The harshest penalties, such as shutting down a media outlet or banning newspaper printing or distribution, were also dropped. Protection of journalistic sources was even strengthened. Some journalists prosecuted for "complicity with terrorist organisations" were acquitted after the anti-terrorist law and the criminal code were amended in 2003.
But a new version of the code, which took effect on 1
April 2005, allows "making propaganda for an illegal organisation
or its aims" to be punished by one to three years in prison, with
the heavier penalty if the offence is committed in the media.
Article 159, under which many journalists have been prosecuted for "insulting
the government and state institutions and threatening the unshakeable
unity of the republic," was amended in 2002 and 2003. The punishment
was reduced from a year to six months imprisonment and criticism not
intending to "ridicule" or "insult" state institutions
was no longer subject to jail terms. The new criminal code also abolishes
the offence of "making fun of and insulting government ministers."
However, in contravention of EU standards, the new code says "insults"
are punishable by between three months and three years in prison, with
the heavier penalty if the offence is committed in the media (article
127).
In practice, a judge's interpretation of "criticism"
remained very subjective and unjustified prosecutions continued.
Memik Horuz, editor of the far-left magazine Isçi Köylü,
has been in prison for several years for expressing his opinions in
the course of his job. Nureddin Sirin, a former columnist with the Islamist
weekly Selam jailed for "inciting hatred," was freed on 4
November. By the end of 2004, the supreme court had not ruled on his
appeal against his 20-month prison sentence for this offence.
A former columnist for the daily Milli Gazete, Hakan Albayrak,
was freed on 13 November after being jailed on 20 May for 15 months
for "sullying the reputation of Atatürk" under the 1951
law on crimes against the republic's founder whose article 1 provides
for one to three years in prison. Article 2 doubles the penalty if the
offence is committed through the media.
Sebati Karakurt, of the daily Hurriyet, was detained for 12 hours at
the offices of the anti-terrorist police in Istanbul on 15 October because
of an interview which appeared a few days earlier with Murat Karayilan,
military chief of the former Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK, now renamed
Kongra-Gel). The photo-feature showed smiling and relaxed female rebels
in camouflage uniform. A dozen police searched the home of Karakurt,
who was freed after being questioned by police and the police prosecutor.
National broadcasting media were allowed to use the Kurdish language but the RTÜK continued to impose excessive penalties, ranging from a warning to cancellation of operating licence, on the pro-Kurdish media or media very critical of the government.
The Istanbul station Özgür Radyo was suspended for a month by the RTÜK on 18 August for "inciting violence, terror and racial, regional, linguistic and religious discrimination or broadcasting programmes that stirred up hatred." The RTÜK can withdraw its operating licence if it reoffends.
The local station Günes TV, in the eastern town of Malatya, was also forced off the air for a month from 30 March after the RTÜK accused it of "undermining the state and its independence and the unshakeable unity of the country with the people and undermining the ideals and reforms of Atatürk" (article 4 of the RTÜK Law 3984). Using the same article, the RTÜK suspended the local TV station ART in the southeastern city of Diyarbakir for a month in April for broadcasting two Kurdish love-songs in August 2003.
Mass arrests of pro-Kurdish journalists by anti-terrorist police on the eve of the NATO summit in Istanbul on 28 and 29 June were typical of the way the pro-Kurdish press is treated.
Nine journalists reporting on the break-up of a demonstration
in Diyarbakir against fraud in the 28 March local elections were severely
beaten by police and three of them hospitalised. By the end of the year,
those responsible had not been punished.
6. - RFE/RL - "Iraq: Kurdistan Government official
talks to RFE/RL":
9 May 2005 / by Kathleen Ridolfo
RFE/RL Iraq analyst Kathleen Ridolfo interviewed the Kurdistan Regional Government’s (KRG) representative to the United Kingdom, Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, on 4 May, in response to an article on corruption in Kurdistan in "RFE/RL Iraq Report" on 2 May. Excerpts from the interview follow:
RFE/RL: When we’re talking about corruption in the KRG...is there any mechanism in place [to hold officials accountable for their actions]?
Abdul Rahman: There are mechanisms in place in the sense that there are laws for example, there are laws that govern how the media is run, trade unions, political parties. There are laws that protect the rights of minorities, the freedom of expression. So, there are all these laws that govern different aspects of the system and daily life, if you like, in the Kurdistan region. These laws together can be said to be holding the government accountable.
RFE/RL: But in practice, are they enforced? Has there been any prosecution of government of government officials for example, over issues of corruption?
Abdul Rahman: I don’t know if there have been specific prosecutions of government officials over corruption, per se. It depends on what you mean by corruption. People use this word all the time. If you mean corruption generally to mean using your post or power for personal gain, there have been prosecutions in Kurdistan for people breaking the law, yes.
RFE/RL: And those were government officials?
Abdul Rahman: Among them, yes. But you know, there are people in all walks of life who are prosecuted for breaking the law.... There is corruption in the Middle East generally, and the Middle East unfortunately isn’t alone in that either. But one thing I would say is that the perception of corruption is probably far worse than the rate of corruption itself. That in itself is a problem...perhaps the message isn’t really getting through to people that we are doing these things. I think that’s probably where we really have failed. We need to be much stronger and much clearer in delivering the message that we are coming down on corruption and that we are stamping it out.
RFE/RL: One of the criticisms we often hear from people in Kurdistan is that if they are not part of a party, then they have very little room as far as opening a business or establishing an NGO. And they say without party membership, they cannot navigate through the bureaucracy of the Kurdish administrations.... They feel like they can’t move forward or undertake any kind of entrepreneurial enterprise unless they are a member of a party.
Abdul Rahman: That’s really not the case. Kurdistan does give plenty of room for people with independent views to speak. For example, in the Kurdistan National Assembly, there are many members of parliament who are independent, who don’t belong to any political party. We have a media, which admittedly is run mainly by the two political parties [the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)] but we [also] have some elements of an independent media and that’s growing. There are NGOs. Again, many of them have been set up with the help of the Kurdistan government or with the help of members of political parties. But these things need years to develop. Kurdistan is a democracy that’s been running since 1992 when we had our first democratic elections...but 1992, that’s actually not that long ago when you compare it with democracy in Britain, which has been thriving for quite a few centuries. It will take time for these NGOs, for the media, for these organizations to become emboldened and to really take the bull by the horns.
RFE/RL:If we set 1992 as a [starting point], that’s 13 years. Civil-society development is one of the first markers of [democratic] development in any country. And to say after 13 years, "Well, there’s still no independent NGOs, for example, operating in Kurdistan," I would say that’s a setback [to development] or that is a problem.
Abdul Rahman: I’m not sure that there are no independent NGOs operating in Kurdistan. There are some independent NGOs. But the majority have been helped by the government or by one of the political parties. That’s one point. Secondly, the Kurdistan Regional Government is very aware of the fact that the democracy that we have is a fledgling democracy, and we never pretend that it’s a perfect democracy. Part of the policy of the Kurdistan Regional Government is capacity building. That means building people’s ability to run NGOs, to join trade unions, to have an independent media. Part of the democratization process is to build the capacity of our people, to build their skills, and training. Because of that, or as part of that strategy, the Kurdistan Regional Government is trying to develop relationships with organizations in Europe, in the United States, in other countries around the Middle East that have a democracy in place.
For example, we recently had a group of British trade unions come to Kurdistan. They were helped in their visit to Kurdistan by the Kurdistan Regional Government, [which] organized the entire tour for them, allowed them to meet whoever they wanted to meet.... So, the Kurdistan Regional Government is very aware of the need to progress, to deepen the fledgling democracy that we have, and we’re doing our best.
RFE/RL: So you would deny that if there’s an independent Kurdish individual who wants to [avoid] any political affiliation and start a civil-society organization, they will have a problem in doing so?
Abdul Rahman: If they come up with a coherent plan. One of the problems that we have is that many people come up with ideas, whether it’s a business idea, whether its an idea for establishing an NGO, but their idea might not be as mature as it should be, not as developed as it should be, so they don’t get the help that they want.
RFE/RL: But is it the government’s place?
Abdul Rahman: The immediate reaction is that "We’re not being helped because we don’t belong to a political party. We’re not being helped, because I’m not so-and-so’s cousin, or uncle."
RFE/RL: But do you think that it’s the government’s place to step in and say that this person who wants to establish a civil-society organization is [qualified] or not to do so.... Is it really the government’s place to interfere in an enterprise?
Abdul Rahman: I agree with you...and it’s part of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s policy to have free enterprise and to encourage these organizations that will help establish, and not only establish but deepen the roots of democracy in Kurdistan. This is our stated aim, and we are doing the best that we can. But if people are saying that they have not been helped or that they have had stumbling blocks in establishing an NGO, or an organization in Kurdistan, it may sometimes be just because their plans weren’t mature enough, and maybe they need to think again....
RFE/RL: You mentioned the media in Kurdistan several times and I’m wondering if you can comment on the control over the media by the regional governments and in particular, the lack of dissent that we see in the Kurdish press.... We don’t see a lot of dissent coming from inside Kurdistan, from local media.
Abdul Rahman: First of all, I agree that perhaps the media based overseas are more critical of the parties or the government in Kurdistan. I think that this is due to two factors. One is the Kurdish Diaspora...have been fortunate enough...to live in the West where they have been able to see a mature media, [from] living in democratic societies and they have learned from that and they’re applying what they have learned to the situation in Kurdistan and that’s why we have these websites that can be very, very, critical of the Kurdish parties and the Kurdish system. And there is no problem with that. We have absolutely no problem with that in Kurdistan.
The second point I would like to make regarding that is many people in Kurdistan now have access to the Internet, so it’s not the case that the Kurds of Iraq will only see the Kurdish media. Many Kurdish people, particularly young people, are very Internet savvy, and they will get onto these websites and they will read them, and they will read other websites, they will read the Arab, and Turkish, and Iranian-language websites as well....
RFE/RL: On the issue of dissent, when we speak with people inside Kurdistan, many people tell us that it’s not acceptable to criticize for example, [KDP head] Mas’ud Barzani. Actually, people argue that in the PUK-controlled areas, it’s OK to criticize [PUK head] Jalal Talabani.... But in the KDP-controlled areas, it is not acceptable...to criticize Mas’ud Barzani in public.
Abdul Rahman: That’s not been the case whenever I’ve been in Kurdistan. People have spoken their minds very freely.... People do feel very loyal to the Kurdish leadership, partly because Kurdistan has been under attack throughout its history...so there is that sense of loyalty, of wanting to be loyal to your party, to your tribe, to your group, if you like. There is that element of loyalty there, and there is that element of people being deferential, that people in the West just don’t have.
RFE/RL:The people that I have spoken to myself in Kurdistan have told me that it’s not a case of being deferential to the party, it’s that they feel fearful that if they speak against Barzani, for example, in public, that there will be repercussions or some kind of adverse [action taken against] them.
Abdul Rahman: They may have said that to you, but as I’ve
said, whenever I’ve been in Kurdistan, people have spoken very
freely, so I really can’t comment any more on that.