01
December 2003
2. "Don't slam door on Turkey, German FM tells EU partners", German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer on Saturday again appealed against hampering Turkey's efforts to join the European Union.
3. "Justice in the Dock", A high-profile trial in Ankara becomes a litmus test for Turkey’s aspirations to join the EU.
4. "Terror Attacks and Politics Put Turkey's Military on Edge", Shortly after two truck bombs rocked Istanbul on Nov. 20, soldiers appeared at the city's strategic intersections and bridges, a startling show of force in a country where the military has stepped in to change the government four times in the past four decades.
5. "A Solution for Cyprus?", If UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s plan goes through, within 10-15 years Turkish sovereignty in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) would come to an end and the island would belong entirely to its Greek Cypriots.
6. "Turkey: Who benefits from terrorist bombings?", The bombings in Istanbul raise the question of why al Qaeda would target Turkey and massacre mostly Muslims.
1. - EUobserver - "Turkey calls for Islam and Judaism in Constitution":
1 December 2003
Abdullah Gül, Turkey's Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, has stoked up the debate on religion in the Constitution by saying that a reference to Islam and Judaism should be included in the text if Christianity is to be mentioned.
Speaking at the Foreign Ministers' "conclave" in Naples, Mr Gül said - according to Turkish Daily News - "I told those who want a clear reference to Christianity that the history of Europe had to be examined, because there were not only Christians, but Muslims and Jews in the history of Europe".
"Therefore if the Constitution has to mention Christianity, it should also refer to Judaism and Islam".
Despite this, Mr Gül repeated his conviction that the Constitution should remain free of references to religion.
"But we prefer the draft to remain with its existing form as a secular constitution", he concluded.
The argument over religion is one of the most difficult to resolve in the negotiations over the EU's draft Constitution and Foreign Ministers were unable to make progress on the issue over the weekend in Naples.
France and Belgium have traditionally objected most strongly to any
reference to Christian heritage. But others, notably Poland, insist
that such a clause be inserted into the text. 
2. - EUbusiness - "Don't slam door on Turkey, German FM tells EU partners":
29 November 2003
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer on Saturday again appealed against hampering Turkey's efforts to join the European Union.
"We should not slam the EU door shut in Turkey's face," said Fischer, speaking to the annual congress of the Greens party taking place in the German city of Dresden that was relayed from an EU foreign ministers meeting in Italy.
"For 40 years promises have been made to Turkey, and now that Turkey has undertaken a determined programme of reforms and that terrorism has caused hundreds of victims in Istanbul, we must keep open the gates to Europe for Turkey," he said.
Fischer, who is unofficial head of the German Greens, said it was in the EU's interest to adopt this policy and he called on party militants to face the Turkey issue head on during campaigning for European elections scheduled for June 2004.
He also said they must fight those people in Germany who wanted to set public opinion in Germany against Turkey's adhesion.
Germany has a large Turkish immigrant population.
On a visit to Turkey on Monday Fischer called on Ankara to speed up democracy reforms and pledged support for the country's EU bid.
EU leaders are set to assess progress by the mainly Muslim country
towards meeting the EU's adhesion conditions in December next year.
3. - Newsweek - "Justice in the Dock":
30 November 2003 / By Owen Matthews
A high-profile trial in Ankara becomes a litmus test for Turkey’s aspirations to join the EU.
Officially, Leyla Zana was the one on trial in Ankara’s State Security Court No. 1 late last month. The former M.P., a Kurd, was imprisoned in 1994 for alleged “membership in an illegal terrorist organization.” Her case is now being retried after the European Court of Human Rights found her original conviction to be “grievously flawed.” So in many ways the real defendant isn’t Zana; it’s the Turkish justice system.
The stakes for Turkey in this unofficial proceeding are huge. For the real jury is not the state-appointed judges who will decide Zana’s fate. It’s the gallery of Western diplomats, members of the European Parliament, human-rights advocates and the media who gather for each hearing to witness the proceedings. Their charge: that despite much-vaunted reforms passed by Parliament this summer guaranteeing free speech and other basic rights, Turkey isn’t serious about modernizing the ultraconservative (and sometimes corrupt) judiciary that must enforce those new laws. And that, the critics say, makes them meaningless—a conclusion that could well derail Ankara’s quest to join the European Union.
Turkey’s ruling AK Party came to power last year promising to do everything it could to get the country into Europe. It scrapped the death penalty, lifted bans on broadcasting in Kurdish and other non-Turkish languages, wrote new laws protecting minorities and threw out a slew of repressive human-rights laws that, in the past, had been used to imprison political offenders on flimsy evidence, including Kurds, nationalists and leftists. Much to the amazement of many in Brussels, AK pushed through these changes against fierce opposition from the country’s military and conservative political leaders, opening on paper at least one of the most revolutionary chapters in modern Turkey’s history. But that’s the problem. The reforms are still largely on paper. Turkey’s judiciary has been slow to put the new laws into action. Prosecutors continue to arraign suspects for crimes that should no longer exist. And the police, according to a recent Human Rights Watch report, continue to regularly torture suspects and deny them basic rights.
As the European Union prepares to give Turkey a start date for accession negotiations, it is keeping a wary eye on the trial of Leyla Zana. In 1991 she became the first Kurdish woman ever elected to Turkey’s Parliament—and quickly sparked outrage while taking her oath of office for calling on Kurds and Turks to work together to “build democracy” in Kurdish, the language of a fifth of Turkey’s population. Soon after, the party she represented, the pro-Kurdish People’s Labor Party, was outlawed on the ground that it promoted “ethnic separatism.” Zana and three other M.P.s were accused of colluding with the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which was then waging a bloody guerrilla war against the Turkish military; they were convicted and jailed for 15 years.
The main evidence against Zana came from a former guard at a PKK training camp in Lebanon, who claimed in a written statement that he had seen her there in October1991 . That witness, Ecdet Pacal, never appeared in court at the original trial. Nor is he due to appear at Zana’s new trial—which hinders the defense strategy of knocking down the flawed (and possibly fabricated) prosecution evidence criticized by the European Court of Human Rights. “There will not be a fair trial,” says her lawyer, Yusuf Alatas, who has lodged another complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that his client and her three colleagues should not be kept in prison during their retrial.
Such rough justice is hardly uncommon. In July prosecutors in the eastern province of Kars issued a warrant for the arrest of Gurbuz Capan, mayor of the small town of Esenyurt, near Istanbul. The charge: insulting the memory of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. Capan’s crime, apparently, was to remark during a TV interview that the man still almost universally known as the “Great Leader” was “busy chasing girls.” The offense carries a penalty of three years in prison. A former lawmaker, Aydin Menderes, faced similar charges last summer for allegedly saying “Damn Ataturk” at a political meeting—half a decade ago, in1994 . Ayse Handan Ipekci, a Turkish filmmaker, was put on trial in April for “denigrating the security forces” in a mildly satirical film lampooning some policemen, and that same month an editor and a columnist from the English-language Turkish Daily News were given suspended sentences of 20 months for “insulting the judiciary” after raising similar concerns to those reported in this NEWSWEEK article.
Even reporting those mistakes the judiciary admits can be dangerous. When the daily Hurriyet reported late last year that Ankara’s chief prosecutor, Nuh Mete Yuksel, had been fired for what a panel of judges described as “undisciplined behavior,” the State Security Court ordered the issue seized and pulped—and banned any further reporting of the Yuksel case. European courts regularly refuse to extradite suspects to Turkey because of doubts they will get a fair trial. Even more embarrassingly, European immigration authorities often accept asylum claims by Turkish Kurds who say they have been beaten and tortured by Turkish police and fear they will be targeted if they return. Those within the EU who favor Turkey’s candidacy are aghast at the judiciary’s continued defiance of fundamental European legal norms. Examples, according to Dutch lawyer and human-rights activist Gert Wilde, include trial by jury, basic rights of free speech and association and the exclusion of legal testimony or confessions made under duress. “If Turkey’s judges are trying to sabotage their country’s EU chances, they’re doing a very good job,” says one European diplomat in Istanbul.
The timing of the EU’s next stage of expansion makes all this
especially sensitive. Ankara stands a decent chance of being given
a date to start membership negotiations as soon as2005 . Once that
happens, it’s only a matter of time before Turkey is accepted
into the Union. But if Turkey fails to dramatically clean up its justice
system (and if no solution is found to the Cyprus problem by the time
the divided island joins the EU next year), Brussels will hold off.
That, many in Ankara fear, will cause bitter disappointment inside
Turkey and lead to a loss of reformist momentum. It will also give
those within the EU who are skeptical of Turkey’s accession an
opportunity to push for a “special relationship” short of
full membership. The 11 months between now and the next EU progress
report will be critical in deciding Turkey’s future in Europe.
Time for Turkey’s judges to realize that they—and Leyla
Zana—hold their country’s fate in their hands.
4. - The New York Times - "Terror Attacks and Politics Put Turkey's Military on Edge":
ISTANBUL / November 30, 2003 / By CRAIG S. SMITH
Shortly after two truck bombs rocked Istanbul on Nov. 20, soldiers appeared at the city's strategic intersections and bridges, a startling show of force in a country where the military has stepped in to change the government four times in the past four decades.
But the military was not taking over this time. The deployment, which surprised the government as much as people on the street, was apparently an error.
"It was a matter of miscommunication," Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan explained during an interview at his Istanbul residence. The military, he said, had put garrisons across the country on alert in case looting followed the bombings, and overenthusiastic troops in Istanbul took it as a signal to go into the streets. "After a warning by the governor's office, they returned to their bases," he said.
For many people, though, the incident showed that despite the government's effort to subjugate the generals to civilian control, Turkey's military remains the powerful, independent and ever present patron of Turkish politics that it has been since founding the country 80 years ago.
Turkey wants to join the European Union, and one of the most challenging conditions the European alliance has set for the country is that its military get out of politics. But Turkey's generals are apparently not yet accustomed to waiting for politicians to give orders.
"The military obviously cannot declare publicly that they are against this because they were for Westernization since the early 20th century," said Eser Karakas, an economist and outspoken critic in Istanbul, "but they are in big trouble now."
Turkey's military, the second largest among North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries — after that of the United States — has long steered the country under the secular, Western-looking ideology articulated and personified by the father of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. It has watched like an attentive parent while successive governments fumbled with democracy and has stepped in at times to adjust the rules and restart the game along the prescribed, pro-Western path.
The last time the military put soldiers on the streets was in 1997, when it forced Mr. Erdogan's mentor, Necmettin Erbakan, a pro-Islamic prime minister, to step down. The generals then jailed Mr. Erdogan and barred him from politics to curb the Islamic movement Mr. Erbakan had inspired.
But the military kept a low profile during national elections last year, in part to persuade the European Union that it has stilled its hand in politics. That allowed Mr. Erdogan's party to take control of the government with the strongest mandate of any political party in 50 years.
The new government quickly changed the laws banning Mr. Erdogan from politics so that he could assume his place as prime minister.
In July, the government passed new legislation that stripped executive powers from the National Security Council, the military's primary mechanism for exerting control over political affairs. The council now meets every other month instead of monthly — as it had since the country's 1980 military coup.
A general still leads the council, but Mr. Erdogan said it was only a matter of time before that, too, changed. "In order to achieve a successful transition, we have agreed to do it this way," he said, adding that the military has supported all of the European-inspired reforms. "We are in harmony."
Many people applaud the generals for acting as guardians of the country while its political institutions matured. They say the military is now ready to yield control in return for European Union membership, a sentiment cautiously echoed by the generals publicly.
"If there hadn't been a military role in Turkish politics, there would be no democracy in Turkey today," said Seyfettin Seymen, a former Turkish defense attaché in Washington who retired from the air force as a major general two years ago. "But now we believe democracy is established and strong in Turkey and so there is no longer a reason to stand in the political arena." In fact, Turkey's military is one of the main assets that the country has to offer Europe.
The union is trying to fashion a security and defense policy, independent of the United States, out of its anemic militaries. But only Britain and to some extent France have armed forces capable of carrying out modern warfare operations.
Turkey, with half a million men under arms and the largest fleet of F-16 fighter jets in the world besides the United States, would give European defense immediate teeth as well as strategic reach into areas where conflict is most likely to occur.
But it is no secret that the generals are apprehensive. Shortly before the country's Oct. 29 holiday to celebrate the birth of the republic, Turkey's largest pro-military newspaper ran a headline that read, "The Military Is Uncomfortable." The article was about the generals' uneasiness with Mr. Erdogan's Islamic tendencies, but the headline was a reference to language used during the 1960 military coup.
Analysts say the changes, so far, are superficial and that the military's power in Turkish society remains broad and deep, even if it is less obvious on the surface.
"The military is resisting letting the country become truly democratic," said Mehmet Altan, author of a book about the Turkish military. He contends that on critical policies like the politically divided island of Cyprus, the generals still call the shots. "Most states have an army, but in Turkey, the army has a state," he added.
For one thing, the military has more money than any other state institution. Turkey spends about $10 billion a year on defense, representing the largest percentage of gross domestic product for military spending among the NATO countries. The military receives billions more from its interests in dozens of companies.
Many people contend that the recent terrorist violence has put the military back on edge and Mr. Erdogan's government on the defensive. They charge that his administration relaxed pressure on Islamic militants over the past year and worry that more violence could provoke the military back into politics.
"Senior members of government are anxious that if those attacks continue, they might be forced to call for emergency rule, handing power to the military," Mr. Altan said.
General Seymen said the military was watching Mr. Erdogan. "Although
they say they have changed, they have to smile to their voters, who
are mostly hard-core believers in Islam," the general said.
5. - Milliyet - "A Solution for Cyprus?"
1 December 2003 / by Tufan Turenc
If UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s plan goes through, within
10-15 years Turkish sovereignty in the Turkish Republic of Northern
Cyprus (TRNC) would come to an end and the island would belong entirely
to its Greek Cypriots.
Even those who favor Annan’s plan accept this. For this reason,
they say that the plan should be revised. However, the Greek Cypriots
aren’t even satisfied with this and are calling for even more
advantages. These Greek Cypriots along with the US and European Union
are working hard to make sure the island falls lock, stock and barrel
into Greek Cypriot hands. All their calculations have served this
end. So it’s for good reason that the Turkish side is giving
no ground on the issue of sovereignty. Even opponents of TRNC President
Rauf Denktas argue that signing Annan’s plan without determining
the rights of sovereignty would endanger the continued presence
of Turks in the island.
Now let’s try to spell out the plan’s true character. First
we should agree that if Annan’s plan is accepted, the 1960 agreements
would be officially annulled, which means that Turkey’s status
as guarantor state would end.
Some people might object, ‘But the plan says 6,000 Turkish soldiers
can stay on the island.’ Admittedly this is true, but these troops
won’t be able to even set foot outside their barracks without
the say-so of the United Nations. After the signing of the Annan agreement,
nearly 100,000 Greek Cypriots would retake their former homes in the
TRNC and seize their former goods. Greek Cypriots who settle in the
north within a certain period of time would have the right to citizenship
and the vote. Those who can’t do this will apply to the European
Court of Human Rights as EU citizens and most probably receive those
rights this way in any case.
The real problem is, what would happen to the Turks living in the
houses claimed by the Greek Cypriots? Where will they go? The plan
leaves this question unanswered. Moreover, the exchange of goods at
this stage would certainly spoil the peace. At this point, the following
questions springs to mind: Could a plan proposing the expulsion of
100,000 people from their homes really be called a ‘peace plan’?
Are the wounds caused by such a massive migration likely to heal easily?
One cannot answer these questions. Actually the Greek Cypriots openly
admit that they colluded with UN officials to draw up the Annan plan.
If we really want peace on Cyprus, Annan’s plan needs to be modified.
6. - Green Left Weekly (Australia) - "Turkey: Who benefits from terrorist bombings?"
3 December 2003 / By Michael Karadjis
The recent horrific bombings of two historic Turkish synagogues and two British targets in Istanbul, which left 52 people dead and some 70 injured, raise the question of why al Qaeda would target Turkey and massacre large numbers of Turkish civilians — Jews and Christians but mostly Muslims.
Last year, the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) was elected to government with an overwhelming vote, much to the horror of the US-backed Turkish military establishment, which justifies its undemocratic powers on the grounds of its alleged duty to guarantee “secularism”. In 1997 it ousted a previous “Islamist” party from government.
The conservative AKP government has gone out of its way to show Washington there is nothing threatening about its Islamist roots, and both before the US attack on Iraq and in recent weeks it has engaged in discussions with the US about sending Turkish troops into the Iraq conflict.
But both times it backed down. One reason is the overwhelming opposition of the largely Muslim population of Turkey to getting drawn into Iraq on the US side — polls show 90% of the population oppose any involvement, and this is strongly reflected in the AKP's voter base.
As a result, AKP MPs joined other MPs in rejecting legislation allowing the US to use Turkish bases for its Iraq invasion. This led US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz in May to claim that the Turkish military “for whatever reason, did not play the strong leadership role and attitude that we would have expected”. In other words, the military should have overturned the parliamentary decision as the military has done in the past.
Several weeks ago, the AKP was ready to send 10,000 troops to Iraq to help the US crush the insurgency. On November 7, it withdrew from that decision. This was a significant blow to the US rulers, who are desperate to get others to share the task of sending their young men and women to kill and get killed in order to defend US interests in Iraq.
The recent bombings and the resulting “national security” crisi have hurt a moderate Islamist government which is keeping itself out of the Iraq war in defiance of the pro-US military brass.
On November 21, Turkey's National Security Council, consisting of leading generals, said the terrorist bombings in Istanbul required greater “cross-border” efforts to fight terrorism — across the Iraqi border, that is.
According to a BBC report, some “regard the one-year-old government's six reform packages as ‘harbingers of political instability', saying that they have weakened the security forces, prosecutors and courts, depriving them of the means to fight and deter terrorism”.
These democratic reforms, which are conditions for eventual European Union membership, undermine the power of the military, and the bombings may give it a chance to strike back using “national security” pretexts.
The leader of the right-wing “secular'' True Path party, Mehmet Agar, chimed in, criticising the AKP for ending a countrywide crackdown on Islamic groups and amnestying several hundred ``militants''.
The first Turkish organisation to claim responsibility for the Istanbul bombings was the Islamic Great Eastern Raiders Front (IBDA/C). This group was not set up by al Qaeda, but has a 20-year history in Turkey. Two people arrested for the synagogue bombings were from the south-eastern town of Bingol, which is a hotbed of another group, Turkish Hezbollah (unrelated to the Lebanese resistance organisation of similar name).
These organisation were recruited by the Turkish military to fight the Kurdish insurgency in Turkey's south-east from 1984 onwards. They were responsible for the murder or disappearance of thousands of Kurdish activists.
When the war ended in the late 1990s, the military turned on its
Islamist proxies, killing or imprisoning their leaders. However, according
to the New York-based Peace Initiative/Turkey, “it is yet uncertain
whether these terrorist groups operate totally independently of, and
are not manipulated by, their old masters”.