9 June 2003

1. "Pro-Kurdish group appeals for amnesty for rebels", a Turkish party which backs the country's restless Kurdish minority called on the government Sunday to amnesty exiled Kurdish rebels officially deemed to be "terrorists," Anatolia news agency reported.

2. "Karasu: Everybody must participate in the re-organisation", KADEK Presidential Council member Mustafa Karasu stated that denial police of the state still continued and forces of democracy should re-organize themselves.

3. "Mixed Signals in Ankara", Turkey’s generals fire on Europe and America. Are they cutting loose from the West?

4. "Rights Groups Increasingly Critical Of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline", international human rights and environmental groups have criticized the proposed oil pipeline that will run from the Azerbaijani port city of Baku to the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

5. "Tensions keep turning Iraqi town upside down"

6. "Stop the execution of Kurds in Iran", appeal to the International Community and Human Rights Organisations.

1. - AFP - "Pro-Kurdish group appeals for amnesty for rebels":

ANKARA / 8 June 2003

A Turkish party which backs the country's restless Kurdish minority called on the government Sunday to amnesty exiled Kurdish rebels officially deemed to be "terrorists," Anatolia news agency reported.

"Legal arrangements must be made for the members of (the Kurdish separatist party) KADEK to abandon their arms and to ensure their return to Turkey," said Mehmet Abbasoglu, head of the People's Democratic Party (DEHAP). Calling for a general amnesty of Kurdish rebels, Abbasoglu told a party meeting proposed legislation favouring repentant rebels who had not fought against government forces was insufficient.

The Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) conducted an armed struggle between 1984 and 1999 against Turkish government forces to create an independent Kurdish state in the mainly Kurdish southeast of the country. The campaign claimed more than 36,500 lives. The PKK became what is now known as KADEK (Congress for Freedom and Democracy in Kurdistan), which continues to struggle for the cultural rights of Kurds.

But the Turkish government sees KADEK as the successor to the PKK saying a change of name signifies nothing. Some 5,000 KADEK members are refugees abroad, many in neighbouring northern Iraq. The DEHAP party itself has been threatened with a ban because of suspected links to KADEK. DEHAP, which denies any such links, did not obtain any seats in parliament in the last Turkish general election in November.

It was founded in 1999 by supporters of the People's Democratic Party (HADEP), banned in March by the Constitutional Court for association with Kurdish separatist rebels. Turkey has long been under fire from the European Union, which it is seeking to join, for oppressing its Kurdish population.

Turkish authorities have often seen advocates of Kurdish freedoms as supporters of armed Kurdish rebellion for self-rule. Ankara has only recently begun to legalize Kurdish cultural freedoms as part of efforts to fall in line with EU standards.

2. - Kurdish Observer - "Karasu: Everybody must participate in the re-organisation":

KADEK Presidential Council member Mustafa Karasu stated that denial police of the state still continued and forces of democracy should re-organize themselves.

MHA/FRANKFURT / 6 June 2003

KADEK Presidential Council member Mustafa Karasu stated that they considered DEHAP’s decision to re-organise itself sensible and right. Karasu stressed that the people too must be included in the democratic politics. “The four-year-old ceasefire being not effectively used affects us negatively as well. It is not possible for the process to continue like it was. Conditions impose a certain development. If conditions permit it, all tensions will be eliminated and war threat will be avoided wholly,” said the council member.

Drawing attention to the denial policy of the Turkish state, Karasu said thatthey were facing that even rights to be granted to one when one is born were denied. “Our expectation is to include the people into the democratic politics. A new force should appear to include it to daily politics, to allow it to determine its own politics. Therefore we see the re-organisation right and sensible,” said Mustafa Karasu.

The council member stated that DEHAP trusted on a powerful mass and a people and continued with words to the effect: „DEHAP is the foremost party in Kurdistan and it has been so for a long while. But that does not matter so much. What is most important is to struggle and make activities to democratize Turkey, to solve the Kurdish question. As far as the need of Turkey for transformation and change, the role assumes more importance. Being in a leading role is of extreme importance.”

Karasu attracted attention that the re-organisation could not be managed in a short period, asking for mass participation of the people in the politics. Karasu had also this to say: “To overcome the old ways is necessary. Everybody has put in work. There was an alliance with the democratic block but as it was a classical way it could not be deepened, therefore in Kurdistan the possibility to increase the influence was not utilized. Nobody should fear to change ways and to renew himself/herself. The re-organisation must be made without delay. It must embrace all sections of the society. It is a democracy movement for everybody and must be claimed by all. If democracy is improved, our job will be easier. Therefore our people must support it actively.”

3. - NEWSWEEK INTERNATIONAL - "Mixed Signals in Ankara":

Turkey’s generals fire on Europe and America. Are they cutting loose from the West?

ANKARA / by Owen Matthews / June 16 issue

When the Turkish military speaks, Ankara’s politicians sit up and listen. It’s not the general staff’s way with words that focuses the mind. Rather, it’s their habit of deposing civilian governments that don’t share their views.

FORTY YEARS AGO Turkey’s generals hanged a democratically elected prime minister; three other governments have been ousted since then, most recently in 1998. Now the military is speaking out again and, for the first time in memory, America and the European Union are coming under fire. To anyone mindful of Turkey’s checkered history, this raises serious questions about where the country is heading, and whether it might be wavering in its traditional Western alliance.

No one’s predicting another coup. But last week, in a series of seminars and lectures to select audiences, Turkey’s top generals outlined a disconcertingly aggressive and strongly nationalist vision. Claiming still to be committed to joining Europe, Chief of the General Staff Hilmi Ozkok nonetheless blasted the EU’s “double standards” concerning Turkey’s application for membership. Another senior officer labeled Europe’s calls for increased rights for Turkey’s 12 million ethnic Kurds as “a threat to national unity.” That puts Turkey’s civilian government in a serious dilemma—to risk a bruising confrontation in Parliament, possibly as early as this week, or back down on some of the urgent reforms demanded by Brussels. All this is sure to give Europeans pause as they contemplate whether or not to begin accession talks with Turkey next year.

The United States came under even harsher attack. Bashing America for seeking to impose its “hegemonic” will on the world, Ozkok’s deputy, Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, indirectly accused Washington of ignoring Turkish security concerns in Iraq. The salvo stunned U.S. officials. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had criticized Turkey’s military for not “playing the strong leadership role that we would expect” during the run-up to war, when Parliament failed to approve U.S. plans for a “northern front.” Still, Washington recently approved a $1 billion aid package, and Secretary of State Colin Powell, visiting Ankara, referred to Turkey as “a good friend.” “We thought it was time to let bygones be bygones,” says one senior U.S. official in Ankara.

What’s going on? Clearly, the Army’s harsh rhetoric was a shot across the bows of Ankara’s civilian government. Turkey’s ruling AK Party, elected last November with a massive mandate to guide the nation into the EU, is preparing an ambitious package of laws designed to bring Turkey into conformity with Brussels’s human-rights norms. That means scrapping restrictions on free speech, curbing police powers and reforming the judiciary—as well as granting Kurds more rights to speak, learn and broadcast their own language. The AK’s —large majority in Parliament almost ensures the laws’ passage. But for now they are stuck in the National Security Council, a secretive military-civilian body that officially is only an advisory council but which in practice is where the Army picks apart laws it doesn’t like.

Turkey’s hopes for the EU would be badly damaged if the Army succeeds in gutting the latest reform package. Even if it doesn’t, the repercussions could be dramatic. Long term, Turkey’s trajectory toward Europe will mean the end of the Army’s role in political life. Europeans will have no truck with a member dominated by its military, however benign. The generals could simply be signaling resistance to efforts to curb their power. Or they may be telling the AK Party to tread lightly, especially on human-rights issues, lest it be ousted as previous governments have been.

As for the United States, Turkey may be protesting Washington’s saber-rattling against neighboring Syria and Iran. Or U.S. policy in northern Iraq, where Ankara fears Kurdish independence and has been covertly supporting Iraqi Turkoman groups in their bid for a greater slice of political influence under the U.S.-run interim administration. To add insult to injury, Washington last week delivered a crushing snub by referring a Turkish offer to send peacekeepers to Iraq to the Poles, who will control a small sector of the country.

Among these unknowns, one thing is certain: Turkey’s generals are playing a risky game. Their skepticism of Washington’s hawkishness may be in tune with the times. But if their meddling jeopardizes Turkey’s EU bid, they risk alienating a large segment of Turkish opinion, as well as the conservative establishment that supports them. Inadvertent or not, blocking the country’s Westward progress would condemn it to a civilizational limbo, torn between East and West but fully part of neither.

4. - Eurasianet - "Rights Groups Increasingly Critical Of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline":

8 June 2003 / by Antoine Blua

International human rights and environmental groups have criticized the proposed oil pipeline that will run from the Azerbaijani port city of Baku to the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

The $3 billion, 1,800-kilometer "Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan" pipeline is due to be completed in 2005. It is one of the biggest foreign direct investments planned for the region.

The U.K.-based human rights group Amnesty International says, however, that legal agreements governing the construction and operation of the pipeline may hinder countries, especially Turkey, from protecting the rights of workers.

Amnesty's Sarah Green told RFE/RL that Turkey has agreed to pay compensation to the consortium building the pipeline if construction is delayed -- even if the delay comes because of efforts to safeguard workers' rights.

"This means that if Turkey at any time wants to intervene with the construction and the operation of this pipeline, for example to protect worker safety, to inspect the project, to call for young people not to be employed on the project -- those who are underage -- or Turkey might want to intervene in terms of ensuring good compensation for the [30,000] people who have to give up their land. If Turkey intervenes in any of those ways, it will have to pay compensation to [companies in the consortium]. Now this is a huge disincentive [for Turkey] to protect human rights," Green said.

Much of the cost of building the pipeline will have to come from outside, from public and private lenders. The criticism could it make it more difficult for the consortium's companies, such as Britain's BP (British Petroleum), to raise funds.

Green said that Amnesty is asking that an explicit clause protecting human rights be inserted into the pipeline's legal documents.

The governments of Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia have already signed a declaration stating that the construction and operation of the pipeline will comply with international environmental and human rights standards.

This was reinforced by Roddy Kennedy from BP's press office in London. He told RFE/RL that BP is confident the construction and operation of the pipeline will be completed according to international human rights and environmental standards. He said the pipeline will be buried along its entire length and that the land above will be returned to its previous state.

Nevertheless, according to CEE Bankwatch Network, a coalition of environmental organizations from Central and Eastern Europe, the consortium's environmental assessment is inadequate. Manana Kochladze is Bankwatch's Caucasus coordinator and works for the Georgian nongovernmental organization Green Alternative in Tbilisi.

"There was no discussion about an alternative routing of the pipeline," Kochladze told RFE/RL. "The project's sponsors proposed one route. And they tried to justify that [route, by saying] even [though it is] going through very sensitive areas [it] will not damage the environment. But of course, nobody could give any guarantee that there will not be any accident during the 40 years of the project's operation. And there are serious threats to water resources."

In Turkey, Kochladze said, the route crosses several internationally important wetlands, two sites protected under Turkish legislation, and 49 ecologically sensitive areas. In Georgia, environmental activists and scientists are concerned that the pipeline's route goes through the Borjomi Valley, where mineral water is produced and exported. Kochladze said an oil leakage could have a dramatic impact.

The Georgian International Oil Corporation -- the national oil company -- has ensured that all possible safety measures will be applied to avoid contamination of the surface and ground waters.

Activists say they are also concerned that many of the decisions governing the pipeline have been made without proper consultation with local populations. Anders Lustgarten of the London-based Kurdish Human Rights Project told RFE/RL that in some areas -- such as the Kurdish parts of Turkey -- the BP-led consortium did not properly inform local populations.

"We've done four fact-finding missions, which have covered the entire length of the pipeline in different sections. And we found that, although BP has responded to our criticism and has improved consultation in certain areas, in the Kurdish region of northeastern Turkey there's no consultation. It's not possible for reasons of both Kurdish history and modern political oppression for people to say 'no' to the project. So we don't regard consultation as remotely valid in that region," Lustgarten said. "We also don't regard it as valid in Azerbaijan, where people have been publicly pressured and threatened on television by the son of the president, Ilham Aliev, [who is also the first vice president of Azerbaijan's state oil company,] to cooperate [with] the pipeline project."

Lustgarten said local populations along the route of the pipeline will not share fairly in the project's revenues, adding that the project will create few local jobs as workers are being imported from outside.

5. - Phaladelpia Inquirer - "Tensions keep turning Iraqi town upside down":

Domiz is a flashpoint of the nation's ethnic rancor.

DOMIZ / 8 June 2003 / by Michael Currie Schaffer

First it was Kurdish. Then Arab. Then, thanks to the war, it was Kurdish again. Then, thanks to U.S. intervention, it was Arab once more. Finally, with American troops keeping the peace, the population of the northern Iraqi town of Domiz is mixed.

And, many residents say, so are Domiz's prospects.

"We feel safe," said Nashwan Hamid Khalil, the town's Arab interim mayor, whose eloquent protests helped persuade U.S. authorities to evict the armed Kurds who had seized Arab houses. ""We feel that there is law."

"We are selling our house," countered Ahmed Ali Mahmud, 52, one of a growing number of longtime Arab residents who returned to Domiz, only to sell their homes and move away for good. "We are afraid that if the Americans leave this area, the Kurds will drive us out."

A month after U.S. troops intervened to undo their erstwhile Kurdish allies' land grab, this 800-household community appears to be doing yet another demographic somersault.

In less than a week, Khalil said, 66 Arab families sold their homes to Kurds.

An additional 184 Kurdish families moved into vacant houses and adjacent buildings that housed Iraqi army personnel before the war.

American officials in Domiz say the plan was to create a mixed community.

"We've got a mandate to show that Kurds and Arabs can live together," said Lt. Straus Scantlin, 31, a civil affairs team leader with the 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Ky.

Under a deal that secured the cooperation of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, a leading Kurdish faction whose members had been the squatters, houses in the village now may be sold only to Kurds.

"It's very democratic," Scantlin said of the sales process. "The people who want to stay have stayed. The people who want to leave have left."

But many Arab residents said the political environment in northern Iraq had frightened their neighbors into moving.

"People are selling at very cheap prices just to leave this place," said Tadhi Hila Daher, 55, an Arab widow who lives with her daughter-in-law and six grandchildren. Daher said she thought Kurds in surrounding communities would return when U.S. troops departed.

"If it were not for the Americans, they would kill us all," she said.

The politics of real estate may be the most explosive issue in northern Iraq.

The area was the epicenter of Saddam Hussein's policy of "Arabization," under which tens of thousands of Kurds were forced off their land to make way for members of Iraq's Arab majority.

This spring, as Kurdish forces moved south alongside American troops during the war, entire Arabized villages fled because they knew the original Kurdish residents would return.

In most cases, American troops did not intervene. U.S. officials said competing land claims would be sorted out once a legal system and a political process were in place.

Domiz was different.

A bedroom community built for civil servants and lower-level military families by Hussein's government during the 1980s, its Arab residents had proof that they had paid for their houses. Homeless and destitute after the war in the nearby city of Mosul, the Arabs protested outside the American military headquarters.

Khalil tracked down the descendants of families who had owned the land under the Ottoman Empire to prove that Hussein's government had compensated Kurdish landowners when it built the town.

"They had the paperwork," said Capt. Teresa Raymond, 32, the judge advocate general officer for the 101st Airborne's Second Brigade. "They had an immediate complaint."

On May 6, American troops acted on that complaint, descending in helicopters and loudspeaker-equipped humvees to disarm the Kurdish squatters and order them out by sundown.

It was an emotional day, as Kurds accused the Arabs of being senior members of Hussein's Baath Party and accused their American allies of betrayal.

"This land belongs to Kurds and we paid for it with our blood," said Nooruddin Mohil Salim, 30, a Kurdish militiaman who, like many residents, brandished Kurdistan Democratic Party chits that purportedly entitled him to a house. "Now the Americans are telling us to leave."

After the original Arab residents returned in a bus caravan several days later, American officials stressed that Domiz was not a precedent.

"It's not for us to decide if it's Kurdish or Arab land," said Col. Joe Anderson, the brigade commander in charge of U.S. forces in Mosul.

Anderson said he wanted Mosul's recently selected city government to deal with such issues.

6. - East Bureau / Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) - "Stop the execution of Kurds in Iran":

7 June 2003

Appeal to the International Community and Human Rights Organisations

At a time when the Arab and Kurdish nations in Iraq are planning and working for the establishment of a federal democratic government, the Islamic regime in Iran, in flagrant violation of the principles embodied in the International Declaration of Human Rights is pursuing its policy of oppression and violation of the rights of all people in Iran, in particular the Kurdish people.

In March this year while the delegation of the UN Human Rights Sub- Commission was in Tehran, the Islamic authorities executed three young Kurdish men in Kurdistan. At present the lives of three more Kurdish men are at risk because of imminent threat of execution. In a statement of the Association of Iranian Political Prisoners (in Exile) dated 22 May 2003, the names of the accused and details of their cases are given below:

1- Mohammad Esmaeelzadeh, known as Mohammad Sharwerani, is 35 years old and married with a seven-year-old child. He was arrested on 8 August 1996 near Mahabad while suffering from a severe leg wounds. The authorities not only denied him medical treatment but also tortured him repeatedly and harshly and later amputated his leg. Mohammad was accused of membership of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran and involvement in activities against the Islamic regime of Iran. He was initially sentenced to death by Branch 1 of the Islamic Revolutionary Court in Mahabad, His sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court on 2 March 1999. Mohammed appealed to the High Council of the Judiciary Branch and Judiciary Committee of the Islamic Parliament (Majless), but on 9 January this year his sentence was upheld. He is now in Mahabad prison facing imminent execution.

1- Khaled Faridooni is married and was arrested at the beginning of the year 2000 in Piranshahr in the Kurdish area of northwest Iran. Despite his injury at the time of arrest, he has been subjected to severe torture during his imprisonment.

1- Omar Feghe-poor is married and was also arrested in Piranshahr and has experienced imprisonment and torture.

Khaled and Omar were sentenced to death by Branch 1 of the Islamic Revolutionary Court in Mahabad on various charges including membership of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran and activities against the Islamic regime. They are also both being held in Mahabad prison.

When the death penalty in most countries has been abolished, the Islamic Republic of Iran in opposition to the fair demands of the Kurdish people in Iran and in pursuit of its policy of repression employs torture and killings and executes people who demand their human rights.

We strongly condemn the inhuman and undemocratic policy of the Islamic regime in Iran and urge the international community and human rights organisations to strongly oppose the plan for the threatened execution of these Kurdish men and intercede to save their lives.