TRKNWS-L Turkish Daily News (March 22, 1996)

From: TRKNWS-L <trh@aimnet.com>

Turkish News Directory

CONTENTS

TURKISH DAILY NEWS / 22 March 1996

[01] Newroz celebrated nationwide in peace

Turkish Daily News

ANKARA- Newroz, the beginning of spring, has been celebrated by Turkic peoples for centuries as a time of rebirth, peace and fertility. This year's celebrations encompassed all of Turkey and were joined by representatives of the Turkic republics of Central Asia.

Nahit Mentese, state minister and deputy prime minister, issued a message on occasion, the Anatolia news agency reported.

Mentese said that it was meaningless to talk about ethnic and cultural differences at Newroz, and added that it would be inhuman to try to subvert the festival for different purposes.

Mentese noted with pleasure that Newroz, a day of peace and love, had become an international celebration with the participation of guests from Turkic republics.

Ahmet Kayhan, acting governor of emergency rule region, said that Newroz consolidated the peace and security of the eastern and southeastern part of the country. He added that illegal activities in the region would not be tolerated.

Kayhan further noted that although the festival had been celebrated in a traditional way in Anatolia and Central Asia for many years, some groups had tried to portray Newroz as a festival only belonging to one ethnic group. He said that the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) had shed blood at Newroz in previous years.

Abdurgafur Abdurahmanov, Uzbek ambassador to Ankara, said it was very pleasing for the Turkish world that Turkey was marking Newroz. The ambassador wished peace, unity and integrity for Turkey.

Alparslan Turkes, chairman of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), noted that Newroz was a festival which had been celebrated by the Turkish nation for centuries. He commented that language, religion and such traditions were what helped nations survive.

Meanwhile, the First International Newroz Running Race was held in Ankara on Thursday in front of the Presidential Palace.

A total of 715 sportsmen, including athletes from Turkic republics, participated in the race.

A Newroz fire was lit in Ankara's Kizilay district with the participation of ministers of culture and folk dance teams from Central Asia. The celebration was organized by the Ministry of Culture and Turkish Cooperation and Development Agency (TIKA).

The pro-Kurdish People's Democracy Party (HADEP) held a celebration meeting at the Selim Sirri Tarcan Sport Hall in Ankara. During the meeting some people chanted separatist slogans but were rapidly warned not to by the celebration committee. Some 5,000 people, including Sedat Yurttas, Ahmet Turk and Sirri Sakik, former deputies of now-defunct Democracy Party (DEP), participated in the celebration meeting.

Newroz celebrations were held in the southeastern part of the country. One group, who lit a fire in Diyarbakir's Baglar district and began to chant pro-PKK slogans, was dispersed by security forces. In other parts of the region, celebrations were held in peace and security.

In the Greek city of Salonica, separatists and Greek Cypriot students staged a demonstration against Turkey on the pretext of Newroz.

[02] German police on red alert for Kurd rallies

TDN with wire dispatches

ANKARA- After the weekend of violent riots in Germany by militants and supporters of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), many German cities have banned the demonstrations of Newroz, which Kurds call the beginning of their new year, scheduled to be held during the week.

More than 300 people were hurt in pitched battles in Dortmund on Saturday as police tried to stop thousands of Kurds from attending a banned protest marking Newroz.

German officials vehemently denounced PKK militants for the political violence at the weekend and vowed to change the law to allow deportations of foreigners for serious breaches of the peace.

Police have been on red alert after German security officials said the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) had given orders to exploit the new year demonstrations, Reuters reported on Thursday.

On Wednesday in Brussels, Dogan Cudi, representative of the ERNK, the political wing of the PKK, held a press conference at the International Press Center, according to the Anatolia news agency.

Cudi called prohibiting Kurdish-origin people in Germany from celebrating Newroz a provocation, and added that they were as ready for war as there were for peace in 1996. Cudi warned that the demonstrations would be held despite the German ban.

German police prepared on Thursday to block demonstrations marking Newroz that officials fear could turn into violent protests by the PKK.

Following the example of several other towns across the country this week, the cities of Mainz, Freiburg and Reutlingen banned the planned Kurdish rallies and urged people to stay away.

A German newspaper said the special measures by the German police to stop demonstrations from taking place cost at least DM 15 million per day.

A German diplomatic source said the protocol which said that the people involved with the PKK should be extradited to Turkey, signed last year between the Turkish and German interior ministries had not been effective because of some difficulties stemming from the fact that the states are responsible for its application, not federal officials.

The source said some states feared that people who were extradited to Turkey would be subjected to torture although the Germany Embassy in Ankara knew that this had not happened.

The same official pointed out that the German government was deporting Turkish citizens who participated in outlawed demonstrations in Germany, including PKK militants and supporters.

State Minister Unal Erkan, in Germany to participate in the Undeveloped Cities Development Conference in Berlin, met with Housing Minister Klaus Topfer in Berlin, and expressed Turkey's satisfaction with Germany's determined stand against the PKK.

[03] Turkey scaps $100 levy on foreign travel

ANKARA- The coalition Cabinet on Thursday abolished a highly controversial tax Turkish citizens had to pay on each journey abroad.

Government spokesman Agah Oktay Guner announced after a Cabinet meeting that ministers had signed a draft removing the $100 "mass housing fund" levies imposed on foreign travels.

The decision will take effect after having published in the Official Gazette.

The levy, launched in 1984, aimed to raise funds to support mass housing construction.

There has been increased public reaction against it over recent years. A Turkish judge appealed to several courts to seek a ban on the levy, claiming that it violated the constitutional principle of freedom of travel.

Turkish authorities said Turkey could lose up to $80 million from the removal of the travel tax every year.

They said only 20 percent of 4 million Turkish travellers paid mass housing levies because the remaining 80 percent "was subject to exemptions." "The exemptions are so wide that the levy has already lost its meaning. With its removal, we shall obtain a fairer picture," said one customs official.

But Turkish policy-makers are devising plans to compensate for the losses from the removal. One idea is to raise airport taxes.

The Treasury had earlier proposed reducing the mass housing levy to $20-25 but Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz gave orders for its removal.

[04] Proposal calling for changes in house rules presented to Parliament

Turkish Daily News

ANKARA- A law proposal calling for changes in the house rules in order to adapt them to the amendments carried out in the Constitution and also to expedite the operations of the general assembly was presented to the office of the Parliament speaker on Thursday.

Deputy Parliament Speaker Hasan Korkmazcan said that the studies of the interparliamentary committee which had prepared the proposal upon Parliament Speaker Mustafa Kalemli's behest would not be limited with the current proposal and that they would continue their efforts for a streamlined Parliament.

Korkmazcan said that the most significant reform introduced with the proposal was that the motions calling for changes in the laws could only be presented with the agreement of the parliamentary groups of the parties if the legal amendments under consideration were needed by the majority of the people.

The biggest problem which he and his colleagues faced while amending the laws, he said, was that the relevant law proposal or draft bill was subject to a different change by each committee which reviewed it. He said some parts of the related proposal were even changed during the debate at the general assembly causing it to lose its integrity. He said with the prior conciliation of the parliamentary groups and basic legal amendments, such a problem would no longer exist.

Other considered changes are as follows:

- Before the overall voting of draft bills or proposals, the government or the relevant parliamentary commission can ask for the debate of a certain article of that draft bill or proposal for one time. This will not, however, be applicable during the debate of constitutional changes.

- Attendance of 184 deputies (one-third of the full number of deputies) will be sought for a parliamentary quorum.

- The verbal request of 20 deputies will be required in order to ask for a roll call. The current rules call for 10 deputies.

- The written request of 20 deputies will be required in order to ask for a secret parliamentary session, 15 less than the existing rules call for. Also the request of 20 deputies will be required for demanding open voting.

- If the proposal becomes a law, Parliament cannot recess for more than three months.

The interparty committee has determined the parliamentary commissions as follows: Constitutional Commission; Justice Commission; Foreign Affairs and Defense Commission; Internal Affairs Commission; Education, Culture and Youth and Sports Commission; Public Works Commission; Transportation Commission; Environment and Tourism Commission; Health, Family and Labor and Social Affairs Commission; Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Affairs Commission; Industry, Trade, Natural Sources, Energy and Technology Commission; Commission for Investigation Parliamentary Accounts; Petitions Commission; Plan and Budget Commission, State Economic Enterprises Commission and Human Rights Study Commission.

In a recent interview with daily Milliyet, Kalemli stressed that he would bring a democratic discipline to Parliament and make its workings transparent.

Regarding the considered changes in the internal order of Parliament, Kalemli said since 1960, it had been proposed that the house rules should be changed and that they should be functional, brief and understandable. He also said that the alteration of the parliamentary timetable was necessary to allow deputies to work in their respective election districts.

Kalemli said if he and his colleagues worked for three weeks and took one week off, or if they divided the calendar by two weeks each, there would be time to make contact with the electorate.

[05] Ambassador Gunduz Aktan Interview:

- 'In positive law there is no stipulation that says human rights are violated only by states. On the contrary there are stipulations that say that individuals and groups, just like states, can engage in human rights violations'

- '...if a society is a democratic society then groups, or ethnic group or individuals, have to try and develop their human rights and freedoms or their ethnic rights or cultural rights within the framework of democracy'

- 'I see some ulterior motives behind their approach. There are very powerful circles which do not want Turkey to become a member of the EU It can also be argued that some countries do not want Turkey become an EU member either although they do not say so openly.' - 'There are human rights groups in Europe that are trying to run away from their own problems by focussing on the problems that befall ethnic groups in far-off lands and on problems that exist in their own imagination'

By Semih D. Idiz

Turkish Daily News

ANKARA- Ambassador Gunduz Aktan, a deputy undersecretary at the Foreign Ministry, is one of Turkey's most senior and experienced diplomats. He is also an official who often finds himself in the front line having to respond, at official or unofficial fora, to allegations of serious human rights violations in Turkey.

Aktan believes, in this regard, that a great injustice is being done to Turkey and does not refrain from seeking ulterior motives for the West's intense concentration on this problem He mentions powerful groups and countries in Europe who do not want to see Turkey in the European Union because of its different culture and religion.

Neither does he mince his words when he says the West, unable to face up to its own problems, the most prominent now being rising racism, uses the psychological "displacement mechanism" of focussing on others' problems to flee its own woes.

"If they really want to solve their own problems they have to analyze their own feelings and say, 'We are the ones with these racist feelings and therefore we are the ones that have to solve this.' They should not interfere in other peoples' problems and make these problems intractable" Aktan said.

The following is the full text of the interview with Ambassador Gunduz Aktan on the issue of human rights.

TDN: Turkey today is faced with a full frontal attack from Western countries and NGOs over human rights. What, in your view, is the reason for this?

AKTAN: This stems from two related reasons. The first is that their approach to human rights is narrow. The second is that there is the phenomenon of terrorism in Turkey's Southeast.

There are allegations that human rights are violated from time to time within the course of the fight against terrorism.

Foreign NGOs and some countries in particular give great prominence to these violations and criticize them. But when you look at the matter from the point of view of the narrow definition of human rights you see that these criticisms relate to the juridical human rights of suspected terrorists. There are allegations that these suspects are held incommunicado for long periods of time, that they are subjected to ill-treatment and torture under detention, that they face extrajudicial executions or that they disappear after their release.

But human rights cannot be taken up in such a narrow sense. Of course these factors constitute an important element of human rights, but human rights are not just made up of these. There are also democratic political rights, socioeconomic rights, but (Turkey's critics) push these to the background. Now there is the subject of cultural rights. These have not as yet become a subject for international agreements. But these rights are being requested from Turkey for a certain ethnic group. We know that Turkey's international commitments in this respect are very limited. Neither have these rights as yet taken their place in the international system as rights of groups or as political rights.

Now the phenomenon of terrorism in Turkey is of the type that is seen in other countries under similar circumstances. Today in many countries there are clashes of an ethno-nationalist nature.

In these clashes, substate groups generally resort to terrorism.

International human rights circles condemn terrorist groups for the terrorism they engage in, but they do not say that these terrorist acts are violations of human rights. Then the following picture emerges. States constantly engage in human rights violations, but what the terrorists do are not violations and are merely condemned as acts of violence. This is the root cause of the very unbalanced reports that are produced about countries such as Turkey. This is also the point at which politicization comes in. Certain countries, and certain international human rights circles, constantly produce overblown images of human rights violations by a certain party in order to support the political demands of ethnic groups that have nothing to do with human rights, in order to support these groups in their struggle to secure these demands. We see this especially in reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Now I have to point this out. In positive law there is no stipulation that says human rights are violated only by states.

On the contrary there are stipulations that say that individuals and groups, just like states, can engage in human rights violations. I can point to two important articles in this respect. Article 30 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was inspired by the former article. In both cases it is spelled out clearly that individuals and groups can violate human rights just like states. Now the concept that lies behind this is that human rights are "ergo omnes," in other words they are valid for everyone and can be violated by anyone. It is not possible to accept that this important concept has been forgotten by Western countries that say they place great emphasis on human rights.

Especially when this point, namely that terrorists can also violate human rights and top of these rights comes the right to live is indicated in all the resolutions adopted by the U.N. General Assembly since 1993.

TDN: There is an argument to the effect that terrorist organizations commit crimes but states do not have the privilege to violate human rights, precisely because they are states and have to be responsible. Is there not such a distinction? If we say terrorist too violate human rights does this not put them in the same league as states?

AKTAN: I understand the question. The implication is that states should not commit human rights violations or that if terrorists engage in human rights violations this does not justify the fact that states may do the same. I of course accept this premise from the start. But this still does not mean that a terrorist cannot violate human rights. The persons that violate human rights are the agents of the state. In other words they are the security forces and these acts are crimes. We acknowledge that these people commit a crime when violating human rights. But then we go on to say that when the terrorist commits this crime it does not carry the nature of a violation of human rights.

This is where the mistake lies. Of course this argument is not just valid for terrorism. We can also take it up in the context of racism. There are individuals and groups today engaged in racism. If we accept the argument that only states can commit human rights violations, then we have to wait for these individuals and groups to establish parties and then for these parties to come to power, and then for them to practice racism as a state policy or doctrine, before we can criticize them for human rights violations. It is not possible to accept such a thing.

When we consider the violation of women's rights we see that the larger part of this involves violations of rights by individuals. This being the case, can we say the following: States should protect the equality of men and women, but should consider as a crime, not a human rights violation, certain pressures and ill-treatment imposed by men on women. If this were the case then we would have to deny a large part of women's rights. The same can be said about children's rights or rights pertaining to private life. Whereas rights pertaining to private life cannot be violated only by states but also by individuals.

Therefore human rights violations have to be taken as a broad concept and it has to be accepted that violations can be made by individuals and groups as well. This is why our approach to the subject is a global one and why we believe that this global approach would be right for everyone to employ.

As it is, the Council of Europe defended this position in an open way until 1971. The problem there was that the Council of Europe gave weight to human rights as rights that can be contested in court. It did not say that individuals and groups cannot violate human rights. It only said that in the event that individuals and groups engage in violations, these have to be seen to in the courts of that country. In other words, you cannot take a terrorist to the Human Rights Commission or to the Human Rights Court. There has not been enough concentration on violations committed by individuals and groups. But this does not mean, of course, that there is a denial of the fact that individuals and groups cannot violate human rights. When taking up this overall issue, one can also look at the matter from the point of view of the victim as well. When you look at it from the perspective of the victim it makes no difference if his or her life is endangered by an individual or an agent of the state. For the victim the ill-treatment, torture or death suffered is an equal affair regardless of who inflicts these.

There is no meaning in defining some part of what the victim has suffered as a human rights violation and other parts as a common crime.

TDN: It is also maintained that human rights violations of the type that Amnesty International accuses Turkey of are a natural outcrop of combatting terrorism or guerrillas, and that East or West, any country in the same situation would be faced with similar charges. Is this a justifiable approach?

AKTAN: This is true of course. The whole question comes to one point and ends up in a knot. That is that if a society is a democratic society then groups, or ethnic group or individuals, have to try and develop their human rights and freedoms or their ethnic rights or cultural rights within the framework of democracy. In a democracy if you are going to develop human rights by resorting to violence then there is no function to discharge for that democracy. There is no meaning left to the logic behind democracy. Why do you practice democracy in a country? You have a democracy to defend human rights and freedoms, or other rights or freedoms without resorting to violence. To underline the importance of democracy and then to accept that violence can be resorted to in order to develop human rights are inherently contradictory positions.

When you look at an ethnic struggle, if an ethnic group is engaged in violating human rights by means of a guerilla war or a terrorist war then it is not possible to accept this. As it is, there is no right to self-determination within democracies because democracy itself is an expression of self-determination.

You will see that this is what democracy is about in all international documents. There is the declaration of the United Nations General Assembly, for example. Declaration 2656 is a declaration on international law and it says that self-determination is not a right that exists in democracies.

The same point was confirmed once more at the Vienna Human Rights Conference in 1993. In other words you cannot resort to force in democracies.

There is another point about terrorism that has to be definitely clarified. There are many definitions of terrorism today. A hierarchy is also imposed on different types of human rights violations. It is said that if you ask a person on the street what is the most serious human rights violation, he will reply by saying "torture." But the most serious human rights violation is in fact the killing of innocent people. Look at Amnesty International Reports and you will see great detail concerning torture.

On the other hand you will find next to nothing about the killing of innocent people by terrorists. That person is a mere statistic and they generally give low numbers concerning these incidents. When you look at the figure they give for those killed by terrorists in Turkey you see that this is only a small proportion of the actual figure. If 320 people were killed in this way last year they only give the figure of 80, and claim this is all they could prove as having been killed in this way. But there is a serious outstanding figure. Why is that not taken into consideration? Why does every civilian killed not merit the same attention as torture cases. Of course this is what leads us to believe that there is a bias operating here.

TDN: Turkey was faced with torture allegations in the 1970s, and then it concerned the ill-treatment of leftists or intellectuals. Today it is faced with allegations concerning the treatment of the Kurds. At any rate Turkey appears under the spotlight one way or another. Why does Turkey take such a prominent place in human rights reports? Are these reports justified? Or do you see what some say are ulterior motives?

AKTAN: I think that what is involved is a great injustice toward Turkey. When we say this our interlocutors say in turn that Turkey is a European country, a member of the Council of Europe and a candidate for membership in the European Union. This is the reason why, they say, there is great stress on human rights in Turkey and why our human rights come under such intense scrutiny. But I think there is a double standard here. In other words, if human beings are equal then human rights violations have to be dealt with in an equal manner regardless of where in the world they take place. But I see some ulterior motives behind their approach. There are very powerful circles which do not want Turkey to become a member of the EU. It can also be argued that some countries do not want Turkey to become an EU member either, although they do not say so openly. The reason for this, although again they will not say this, is that in their minds is the fact that Turks come from a different culture and religion. It is impossible for them to say this openly. So they go for the easy solution. They say that there is a high incidence of very clear human rights violations in Turkey.

But of course it is possible to reverse this argument. I don't want to give any names but there are important countries in the EU and there are racist incidents there. When the number of these incidents is compared to even the highest number of alleged torture incidents in Turkey is still unbelievably high.

For example, it is said for one country that there are an average of 2,000 racist incidents a year. On the other hand you are led to understand that many racist incidents are either not reported fully to the police or the police does not record every incident as racist in nature. In other words there is under-recording and under-reporting. When you estimate what the real figure for racist attacks is you come up with incidents numbering more than 100,000.

Now if you look at the matter in this way an odd situation emerges. There is a terrorism phenomenon in Turkey and everyone knows that the source of this is outside this country. Even though Turkey is involved in unimaginably few violations compared to other countries faced with the same situation, it is still the subject of serious criticism.

On the other hand within the European Union there is another type of terrorism which is not ethnically based but is nevertheless a kind of terrorism, and that is racism practiced by individuals and groups. Because the governments in those countries do not discharge their responsibilities of vigilance in this regard there are an estimated 100,000 attacks against Muslim groups in general and Turks in particular.

But they prefer to overlook this fact. I believe we have to search for some political reasons behind this. I feel there is such an ambivalent attitude on their part towards terrorism. If Western countries want democracy to take root they have to agree on a basic principle. Namely that violence can not be considered a legitimate instrument for developing human rights. They have to accept this and determine their policies according to this. Amnesty International cannot concentrate on violations if it does not reject violence.

Otherwise it appears to be saying that violence is alright but it has to be clean violence and not sullied by violations. This of course is impossible to accept. But this is precisely Amnesty International's position or the position of Human Rights Watch.

But then the question emerges: under what conditions is violence free? But such a question can not be posed under positive law.

TDN: But in Turkey we turn on our TVs and are showered with reports of torture. There is the case of the teenagers in Manisa. On the other hand one of our own colleagues, the journalist Metin Goktepe, was beaten to death by the police, and even the prime minister said so. Then there is the Yasar Kemal case. Is Turkey also not guilty of shooting itself in the foot in terms of its international image with regards to human rights?

AKTAN: For such incidents to take place is highly regrettable.

Turkey as a state has a responsibility. No one should be subjected to torture or ill-treatment in any part of Turkey. If this is happening then the justice mechanism has to immediately take the matter in hand and to punish those found guilty. We as the ministry or I as an human being am not in a position to think differently on this to anyone else.

On the subject of freedom of thought we believe in the broadest possible limits for this in Turkey. This is true as far as the press is concerned and as far as political circles are concerned, and as far as Turkish public opinion is concerned. But the European Convention on Human Rights also recognizes that there are limits to the freedom of thought. Ideas and propaganda that laud and encourage violence, whether from terrorists or otherwise, are banned within the system of human rights. I do not want to accuse anyone here but if there is a situation where this is happening and this is proved then an independent court rules on it. Turkey If this ruling is not considered acceptable then...

Turkey has not recognized the right to go for international arbitration in this regard for nothing. If a person has a complaint about the verdict of Turkish courts then the road has been opened for that person to go to the Human Rights Commission and from there to the European Court of Human Rights. Turkey has opened this road precisely for this reason. This means that I am in principle not against verdicts in Turkey being overturned by international organizations. But if such a thing has not happened to date, then I believe it is unfair to criticize the independent judiciary in Turkey.

TDN: Finally I would like to ask whether you believe human rights awareness has something to do with a society's cultural level? In other words, if the level of culture is higher then the chances are that violations are less because the public at large does not remain indifferent to them.

AKTAN: I believe the answer is already in your question. Of course individuals have to defend human rights. As it is, in the West human rights have developed as a result of the struggle by individuals or by parties organized by various groups. Some of these rights were also won through revolutions and bloody incidents.

There is no problem so far. But when you look at the history of the West there are things that have to be taken into account as well. For one thing the phenomenon we call the "Inquisition" was only abolished in the middle of the last century. Few people know this. The Inquisition represents the open exercise of torture in order to learn the other person's ideas. If it was a matter of culture then such an institution would not have taken place within a Western religious organization. No such institution ever existed in Islam, for example. Neither has one existed in other cultures. Given this, one is also led to thinking whether human rights developed in the West as a means of protecting itself against its own inclinations.

To say that as culture develops respect for human rights develops also is an abstract assessment. It would be more appropriate to talk about developing human rights in order to attain true democracy. If we look at culture specifically, what I see is a genocide that took place in the heart of Europe 50 years ago. 6 million people died as a result of this and around 50 million people died in the war itself. Now, around 50 years after these incidents we see that racism is emerging once again.

Europeans do not know why exactly this is happening. Before there was the great crash of 1929. But there is no such thing today. Europe is in fact living the happiest days of its life at the present time. It is developed and enjoys wealth, it is in the process of unification and so on, but all of a sudden we are faced with the phenomenon of racism.

There are human rights groups in Europe that are trying to run away from their own problems by focussing on the problems that befall ethnic groups in far-off lands and on problems that exist in their own imagination. When you go into a little detail you see that there are other means by which they try to escape their own problems. It is possible that these human rights circles carry feelings of racism against the foreigners in their midst, but it is not possible for them to accept this.

So they select a few target countries in order to say, 'we are not racist but that country is exercising racism against its own minority.' In psychology this mechanism is known as "displacement." They free themselves of their own problems by means of this mechanism. When they try to solve others' problems they feel they are solving their own problems.

But this means nothing except that they are running away from their own problems. If they really want to solve their own problems they have to analyze their own feelings and say, 'We are the ones with these racist feelings and therefore we are the ones that have to solve this.' They should not interfere in other peoples' problems and make these problems intractable."