DIYARBAKIR, North Kurdistan, — The second UK delegation consisted of Fr Joe Ryan, Chair of Westminster Justice and Peace Commission, Nasser Butt, Liberal Democrat politician and human rights activist; Omer Moore, Human Rights solicitor with Trott and Gentry Solicitors and Sanya Karakas, Human Rights lawyer, travelled to Diyarbakir to observe the reconvening of the trial on 13 January 2011.
The charges against the accused were presented to the court in a 7,500 pages dossier, much of the evidence was gathered from wiretapping and phone bugging, a method of evidence gathering that has been widely criticised.
The stakes are high the accused, who are alleged to be linked to the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), face possible jail sentences of 15 years-to-life if found guilty. The battle in the courtroom has so far revolved around the demands of the accused to defend themselves in their mother tongue of Kurdish, which the judge has completely ruled out. The judge even refused to accept that there is such a thing as a Kurdish language, which he described as an “unknown language”, provoking outrage in the courtroom and ridicule from observers.
The trial is now due to reconvene on 19 April 2011 when Peace in Kurdistan intends to organise a third delegation of observers from the UK.
The delegation believes that the outcome of this trial will be something of a watershed for the nature of Turkey in the future and especially for the position of the Kurds within the State.
The delegation filed a report on their travel and its red as follow:
INTRODUCTION
“Please tell our story!”
This is the second report produced by Peace in Kurdistan and includes personal observations from the four members of the UK delegation. This is the second trip we have organised to monitor the proceedings of the landmark mass trial of Kurdish politicians and activists which first opened in October 2010.
The UK delegation consisted of Fr Joe Ryan, Chair of Westminster Justice and Peace Commission, Nasser Butt, Liberal Democrat politician and human rights activist; Omer Moore, Human Rights solicitor with Trott and Gentry Solicitors and Sanya Karakas, Human Rights lawyer.
The delegation travelled to Diyarbakir to observe the reconvening of the trial on 13 January 2011. The eyewitnesses comment on the proceedings in the large courthouse, which was especially built for the trial of 151 prisoners who were arrested in the wake of the March 2009 elections where Kurdish candidates achieved some successful advances.
The charges against the accused were presented to the court in a 7,500 pages dossier, much of the evidence was gathered from wiretapping and phone bugging, a method of evidence gathering that has been widely criticised. The stakes are high the accused, who are alleged to be linked to the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), face possible jail sentences of 15 years-to-life if found guilty.
The battle in the courtroom has so far revolved around the demands of the accused to defend themselves in their mother tongue of Kurdish, which the judge has completely ruled out. The judge even refused to accept that there is such a thing as a Kurdish language, which he described as an “unknown language”, provoking outrage in the courtroom and ridicule from observers.
The trial is now due to reconvene on 19 April 2011 when Peace in Kurdistan intends to organise a third delegation of observers from the UK.
We believe that the outcome of this trial will be something of a watershed for the nature of Turkey in the future and especially for the position of the Kurds within the State.
16 February 2011
Peace in Kurdistan Campaign
“We are ordinary Kurdish people simply seeking justice for our families. We are not terrorists – but have been branded as such … it is terrible and unfair. Can you tell our story?”
– Mrs Burcin Erbey
Observations from Fr. Joe Ryan
I took part in a four-person strong UK delegation to observe the reconvening of the mass trial of Kurdish politicians and activists on 13 January. We witnessed the proceedings in the courthouse which had been built especially for the trial of the 151 selected prisoners out of the hundreds who had been arrested since the March 2009 elections in which Kurdish candidates were very successful. Many others are being tried in provincial courts. The trial began in October 2010.
Much of the original trial time was taken up with the presentation of some of the 7,500 pages of charges held against the prisoners. Things came to a halt when the court denied the prisoners the right to defend themselves in their own native Kurdish language. When the prisoners replied to the roll call in Kurdish, the judge refused to recognise their response, but yet was deemed to be present.
On the first two days of the trial, there were some 20 international observers present in the courtroom arena. There were MEPs, human rights supporters, lawyers, reporters and others. It was a great show of solidarity for the prisoners, their families and all involved in the trial. It was clear that the attitude of the judges were fully aware of the presence of the international observers.
Intense security surrounded the courthouse. We advanced through the first two stages and then waited in a long corridor for the Judge to arrive. This was a most valuable hour and a half as I used the time to move about with my interpreter, to meet as many people as possible. We met and spoke to lawyers working on the case; fellow observers, some prisoners on bail and especially the families and relatives of the prisoners.
We approached one little huddle of women: an elderly woman identified herself as the mother of two sons who are prisoners: “We are ‘simple country folk’, she said. “My sons were involved in a demonstration. They didn’t cause trouble, but were arrested … What am I to do?” She was comforted by the other women around her. She thanked us profusely for being present.
One man we met had been arrested, had been in prison for 17 days and then allowed out on bail. He is a human rights activist and had been charged with writing material, the contents of which ‘undermined national security’. What he said was repeated by many others: “We are not criminals; all that we are looking for is freedom of speech and especially to be able to defend ourselves in our native Kurdish language …”
We met a mother and daughter whose husband and father was in prison. He had been overheard on a mobile as a result of phone tapping saying something critical against the Turkish authorities. That was just one of several charges.
I asked the daughter: “Why do you remain in such good spirits and your father and the other prisoners are not in a state of depression?” She replied: “It is not just about us and our situation. This trial represents so many others who are also in prison and whose human rights are denied. We are lucky because our case is being held in a very public forum. There is a lot of publicity and this is good to highlight our cause. Thank you for being here and giving us your support. You will be able to explain to others what is happening to us, Kurdish people.”
We then spoke at length to the wife of the Chair of the Human Rights Association, Diyarbakir, Muharrem Erbey. Mrs Burcin Erbey told us that her husband as Chair of Human Rights Association was very active in trying to secure justice for so many Kurdish people in Diyarbakir. She retained her job as a teacher; otherwise her family would be destitute as her husband is in prison and they have two young children age 9 and 4. She said: ‘Our nine year old is very effected by the whole drama – goes very silent and I am fearful for my child’.
She further commented: “I am very angry with the Turkish authorities. They are destroying our family. My husband is working for the rights of ordinary people and because of this, he is in prison. Can you please tell our story?”
She went on to speak about the prison conditions where her husband is held: “The prisoners are very cold – four to a cell; they have to wear layers and layers of clothing but still find it difficult to keep warm.” Conditions are not good in prison.”
“Yes, we can go to visit for an hour once a week, three persons at a time. Then once a month there is a more open session for visiting. It is good to be able to make those visits. The extended family is very supportive. Without them life would be most difficult. Please tell our story when you return to England,” Mrs Erbey said
I also had a brief encounter with one limping reporter who had been hit by a rubber bullet the day before: “Yes, I’m fine, some of the others were not so lucky!”
Personally, because I suffer a little from asthma, the wafting teargas into the courtroom didn’t help my medical condition. The gas was still in the air when we emerged from the court. It was most uncomfortable, but it did not prevent me from following up all the contacts arranged by the BDP – The Peace and Democracy Party. I would like to thank the organisers who were most efficient, caring and helpful.
“What do you want us to say on our return to the UK?” This was the question we put to all the people with whom we spoke to. The response was the same: “Tell our story. We are ordinary Kurdish people simply seeking justice for our families. We are not terrorists – but have been branded as such … it is terrible and unfair. Can you tell our story?
In the Courtroom on the back wall, above the head of the Judges these words were displayed, “Justice is the foundation of the country”.
This all sounds very reassuring – but I found no evidence emerging to substantiate the claim. On arrival the prisoners were there in the centre of the arena, surrounded by Jandarma (guards), chatting, communicating and waving at family, friends and observers. Those we had met introduced us to them at a distance. It was a very moving moment.
The proceedings that followed were repeated with each prisoner’s name called in Turkish; they responded in Kurdish; the lawyers identified themselves by passing the microphone one to another.
Defence lawyers called for better facilities for the prisoners during court breaks – the Judge said he would write to the Public Prosecutor on this matter.
Further statements were read out on the history of Turkey and how the Kurdish people have been marginalised. Human rights documentation was cited along with international law to present a case for the release of the prisoners. But at the end of the day no bail was granted.
The next day’s court proceeded along similar veins, but a whole series of new charges were added to the existing list on the 7,500-page document.
One fact struck me as I was listening to the exchanges: ‘Did the Judge, obviously an intelligent person, really believe the charges he was reading out?’ It defies human logic and intelligence, in my mind.
The prisoners were given a chance to speak to the court by raising their hands: “Mr Judge, I am a Kurdish person (microphone turned off), I would like to make my defence in my native Kurdish language.” The Judge retorted: “I do not recognise this language … Mr. Lawyer … can you translate for me?” And so, this would go on and on with several prisoners.
This trial has reversed the tables on the Turkish authorities. It would seem that now the reality, in my view, is that the Turkish nation is on trial for denying the Kurdish prisoners the right to speak in their mother tongue. By denying people the very existence of their language, there is a much deeper reality; you deny identity, culture, history and the very essence of a people’s existence.
It is sheer arrogance on the part of the Turkish court. We experienced at first hand the denial of human rights. Why on earth should one be imprisoned and on trial for exercising one’s legal and civil duties as an elected representative of one’s local authority? It defies simple common sense, not to speak of just laws, both national and international.
The court adjourned until Tues 18 January. The same pattern emerged then: no bail was granted. The court adjourned until Friday 28 January 2011.
In conclusion, I think it is very difficult to see how this trial will end. Both parties consider they are correct in their approach. The defendants realise that their appearance in court can ‘expose’ the flaws in the Turkish judicial system. The Court, meanwhile, will say: “We have set up this special trial; the defendants refuse to ‘recognise’ the court, so they have had a fair chance to be heard, but refused to comply.”
I understand that an appeal can be made to a higher court, so we will watch this space.
Fr. Joe Ryan is a priest of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster. He is parish priest of St John Vianney Church, West Green, London N15. Over the past 40 years, has been serving in 6 parishes within the diocese.
Currently he is Chair of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Westminster Diocese. Justice and Peace issues are at the very heart of the Catholic Church’s teaching and activity and thus are local, national and international.
The Commission tries to identify and raise awareness of injustice and its root causes, including recognition of structural injustice. This then will involve looking at poverty, debt, conflict, resolution, human rights and many other issues. A major task too is to work alongside others and be part of a network involved in all aspects of human development, including environment. The Commission is working as part of the Westminster Diocese with the support of the bishops and people alike.
Fr Joe Ryan has been involved in the Israeli/Palestine situation and visited several other places of unrest, where basic human rights have been violated like Pakistan. He has also been on some peace demonstrations in Kaduna, Nigeria and met with peace workers both in Nigeria and Ghana.
Observations from a Show Trial
By Omer Moore
On 13th and 14th January 2011, I attended with a delegation from the UK the so-called “KCK trial” of 151 Kurdish politicians, human rights defenders and political activists of BDP.
Prior to attending the court hearings I read the indictment of Mr Muharrem Erbey, the Head of the Human Rights Association of Diyarbakir. I noted that the evidence allegedly linking Mr Muharrem Erbey with the PKK relied on telephone calls, emails and other correspondence of a professional lawyer in his daily dealings. It was not clear from the Indictment what possible crimes Mr Erbey accused was of.
This impression was confirmed by the co-chairperson of BDP, Ms Emine Ayne, whom we met in the BDP building. She stated that the Defendants were accused of activities which could not possibly be linked to a recognised crime. She stated that most evidence was based on telephone conversations and gave an example involving herself. During the national election campaign of March 2009 she received a telephone call from a fellow activist of BDP in Siirt, requesting that she gave a speech there. This activist was subsequently accused of giving her instructions on behalf of the PKK.
The first day of the trial gave a good indication of its absurd nature. The initial procedure consisted of the 104 detained defendants confirming their presence in Kurdish. Then the defence lawyers identified themselves and their clients and following this the defence procedure began. Each defendant was given the opportunity to respond to the charges against him or her. All defendants, but one, chose to give their defence speech in Kurdish. When the first defendant was handed over the microphone and began his speech in Kurdish the judge responded immediately saying “it is thought that this language is Kurdish”. Despite the irrationality of this statement my colleague commented that this was still a slight improvement on the judge’s previous response that a defendant spoke in “unrecognised language”. After a few seconds the microphone was turned off and the next defendant was called to provide his statement. Not only was this difficult to observe once, the absurdity of the repeated judge’s statement was magnified by its repetition over 104 times.
When a defence lawyer challenged the judge’s response, the judge ‘defended’ his position by stating that he did not understand Kurdish and therefore could not recognise the language.
Only once in this amazing charade did the Judge change his tune. One of the defendants, asked for five minutes only to explain his position. The Judge responded by saying that the Defendant had already wasted the desired five minutes on requesting it, thus demonstrating that he either understood some Kurdish or at least responded to the content rather than simply ignoring it because it was stated in Kurdish.
There they were, two learned Judges sitting in a court room in the predominantly Kurdish town of Diyarbakir, under the words attributed to Ata Turk “Justice is the foundation of the State”, denying the defendants the right to defend themselves only because they chose to do so in their mother tongue.
Osman Baydemir, the Mayor of Diyarbakir, also a defendant, gave his defence speech on the second day of the trial. He chose to say one sentence only, thus managing to convey his message before the microphone was turned off. He chose the Arabic words of “merhamet, zulum, adalet” saying that “we don’t ask for mercy and we don’t want your oppression, we just wish to have justice”.
The defence lawyers then had the opportunity to address the court. Very wisely, they had divided between themselves the task and tackled the Kurdish issue from various angles. The fact that the subject matter was the denial of Kurdish identity and linguistic rights, rather than the alleged ”crimes” of each defendant, was a clear indication that it was accepted by all that it was indeed a political trial. The judges made no attempt to stop the defence lawyers from delivering their speeches in order to demand that they refrained from speaking in general and political terms. It was clear that this was the crux of the matter.
One defence lawyer urged the court to consider the public prosecutor’s case on its merits, rather than follow a party line. He reminded the judges that the court’s duty was to implement justice rather than to carry out the political agenda of the government. He reminded the court that the defendants were respected politicians, human rights defendants and members of a legal political party.
Another defence lawyer followed from argument stating that it was the BDP party which was in fact on trial and that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Diyarbakir Court to consider the legitimacy or otherwise of a political party. This should be left to the constitutional court.
Another defence lawyer spoke at some length about the history of the Kurdish issue in Turkey from the Kurdish revolts to the extra judicial killings of the 1990s, in order to put the trial in the historical context. A fellow defence lawyer spoke about the work of human rights activists, quoting the UN declaration on human rights defenders which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1998.
I would like to say a few words on the physical aspects of the court itself. Much had already been said on the strange fact that the public prosecutor sits on the same platform as the judges whereas the defence lawyers sit separately, not on stage. The physical proximity between the judges and the public prosecutor suggests closeness in view and was re-affirmed when the issue of bail was considered at the end of the first and second day of the trial. The public prosecutor opposed bail on the feeble excuses that the defendants might abscond, tamper with the evidence or manipulate witnesses. The defence lawyers argued that the defendants were high-ranking politicians, lawyers, human right defenders and respected citizens who are unlikely to do any of these. Nevertheless, the court maintained bail accepting and repeating, word for word, the public prosecutor’s reasons for opposing it.
The defendants were seated in the middle of the courtroom, surrounded by four walls of gendarmes. The gendarmes changed every 15 minutes. One would consider that young recruits aged 20 were able to stand on their feet more than 15 minutes at a time and that the changing of the guards was meant to demonstrate in a crude way the State’s power as well as creating an atmosphere of intimidation.
There were a number of breaks during the hearing. During these intervals the defendants remained in the court surrounded by a thicker wall of gendarmes. Nevertheless, they were able to wave and shout to relatives and friends who observed the trial. I was looking for Muharrem Erbey, whom I knew personally, and was deeply moved when he spotted me in the audience. I could see the emotion on his face and felt satisfied that I was at court, showing my support. In fact, the atmosphere of unity between defendants, lawyers and audience was uplifting.
My colleagues and I met with Mr Fethie Gumus, a senior defence lawyer in this case and a member of the management committee of BDP. He said that the defendants were those who played a major role in the successful local elections and that this was not a coincidence, that the trial came as a “punishment” for BDP’s success. The prosecutor relied on telephone tapping and on undisclosed witnesses. The evidence relied on could easily be refuted. The prosecution relied on conversations taped in rooms where there were a number of speakers and did not bother to identify the voices, attaching the words of one defendant to another. As to the judiciary, they are clearly not independent. He gave as an example the issue of the Kurdish language. He said that he was certain that had Mr Erdogan approved that the statements would be made in Kurdish the court would have allowed it as well. Furthermore, he reaffirmed our impression that the judges did not even pretend to be listening to the defence statements or to the defence lawyers. He gave as an example, the trial in Sirnak where the public prosecutor and the judges played computer games while the defendants gave their statements in Turkish [this was prior to the decision to speak in Kurdish].
he hearing has now come to a standstill. Neither side is likely to change its stand. The defendants are adamant to give their defence in Kurdish, knowing full well that this is a historical trial and that their decision to speak in Kurdish is a breakthrough. The judges, or perhaps the Turkish government, are also fully aware of the implications of the trial. At any rate, as we were told by various BDP members and lawyers, the intention of the court is to drag this case until after the national elections of June 2011.
Omer Moore, is a human rights lawyer, born in Israel. She obtained a PhD in literature and then a degree in law. She has been working as a human rights lawyer since 1998. She is a partner at Trott & Gentry Solicitors. She presented clients in UK high courts and at the European Court of Human Rights. She specialises in asylum law.
A language that is thought to be `Kurdish`
By Sanya Karakas
The battle for `Kurdish` to be recognised by the court in Diyarbakir continued in the last hearings of the KCK case. All defendants expressed the wish to deliver their defence statements in their mother tongue but as soon as they started to speak their microphone was cut off by the judge because it was thought to be ‘Kurdish`. Yes, this was how the court dealing with the case described the Kurdish language despite the existence of a state channel broadcasting in Kurdish 24 hours a day.
Many who observed the hearings were amused with the court’s description and thought that the judge had improved as in previous hearings he had described the Kurdish language as an `unknown language`. Of course the judge does not have to doubt the language is Kurdish considering that he is not from Tanzania but he is from Turkey where a quarter of the population (approximately 20 million) speak Kurdish and he has been working in the main province of the region where 90 % of the population is Kurdish.
His approach represents the official ideology of the state, which is glorifying the Turkish nation and denying the existence of other nations and ethnic groups within its borders. Since using violent means has not been successful to eliminate the Kurds, the judiciary has taken a significant role to repress demands of the Kurds. This practice is more appropriate during the process of EU membership as it gives the impression of legitimacy and does not attract attention from the international community because it seems that the courts are simply fulfilling their duties by trying criminals.
In thousands of cases in the region, the courts fulfil their duties by trying people for attending demonstrations, meetings and press conferences or expressing their peaceful opinions in different ways. Most of them are convicted under anti-terror laws or the Turkish Penal Code for being a member of an illegal organisation. In this way the state tries to stop any democratic and political activities which challenge the official ideology and silence a whole society. Particularly, the KCK case has created a kind of fear among people who are now scared of talking to each other about political issues as they think their conversations are going to be recorded and used against them.
There was another controversial development on the agenda while hearings of the KCK case were continuing in January. Leaders of Hezbollah who were being tried for killing 188 people including former Democracy Party (DEP) deputy Mehmet Sincar were released by the decision of the Court of Cassation after an amendment to article 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force on 1st January 2011.
Whilst Kurdish politicians, mayors, human rights activists and lawyers have been put behind bars because of their democratic activities, releasing leaders of the Hezbollah who murdered civilians in most brutal ways has certainly offended the sense of justice of the Kurds. Some of the released Hezbollah leaders have already escaped and the decision overall is another way of fostering the culture of impunity in Turkey.
This actually should not be a surprise as state or non-state actors who commit crimes on behalf of the state are always rewarded or get away with their crimes. We have witnessed the worst cases as the leader of the neo-fascist group Grey Wolves was described as `honourable` by the former Prime Minister because he fired a bullet for the state. Military members who bombed the bookstore in Şemdinli were described as `good boys` by the former chief of general staff. Comparing these Hezbollah leaders must have seen as they were being victimized because in the end they allegedly killed people for the state and it was time to end their victimization.
Finally, I think the KCK case is a typical example of how cultural genocide is being conducted by the state with all of its institutions. If you want to see how a language is humiliated it would be enough to breath the atmosphere of the court room for 10 minutes and to witness the frustration of people who are denied the opportunity to speak in their mother tongue which physically exists but can not prove their existence, the struggle of defence lawyers who cannot defend their clients because they also try to prove the existence of their clients and relatives of the defendants who are there to support the cause of their loved ones. The court shows signals that they will continue and give its decision without hearing the defence and this will make the trial yet another show trial in Turkey’s history.
Sanya Karakas, is a human rights lawyer from Turkey. She graduated from Dicle University Law Faculty in Diyarbakir, Turkey. After completing her legal traineeship, she worked as a lawyer in the field of criminal law and human rights law in Turkey from 2000 to 2005.
She has also been involved in human rights activism as a member of the Diyarbakir Bar Association, the Diyarbakir branches of the Contemporary Lawyers Association and the Human Rights Association. She undertook a legal internship with Kurdish Human Rights Project and the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute.
She completed an LLM in Human Rights at Birkbeck College, University of London in October 2007 and has been working at Kurdish Human Rights Project as a Legal Associate since September 2008. She has also doing PhD at the King’s College of London since October 2009 and her research focuses on the question of impunity in Turkey in relation to state crimes. She is also a researcher at the “International State Crime Initiative” – www.statecrime.org
Can Turkey escape the Middle-East Revolutions?
By Nasser Butt
I start by expressing my deep gratitude to the officials of Peace in Kurdistan in London and the BDP in Turkey for facilitating our trip. Similarly, to the guides and translators and to the Mayors, politicians and Human Rights lawyers and organisations who spared their time to update us with the experience of Kurdish people in Turkey. The three days in the High Court gave us an insight into the institutional battleground of Turks verses Kurds on both local and national levels. Further meetings with elected politicians and Human Rights Lawyers and NGOs gave us a further insight into the everyday life of the Kurds and other minority communities in Turkey and the political working of Turkish government.
There may have been changes in governments in Turkey over the last 80 years but each regime appeared to have followed the approach to wipe out any reference to past cultures of all non-Turk minority communities. Hence minorities such as the Armenians and Syrian Christians, the Alevi Muslims with their ever-decreasing numbers and loss of culture and languages, have had to survive quietly in the shadows. The only real challenge for dominant Turks has come from its biggest minority, the Kurds. There has thus been a microscopic and oppressive onslaught on Kurds to lose their language, culture and identity as Kurds and instead to adopt all things Turkish, what ever that means.
In turn, this approach has worked as recruiting sergeant for the young Kurds to take up armed struggle. In their battle to survive, Kurds have lost thousands of young men over the decades, yet their families willingly continue to lose these young to the armed struggle against their own Government. Human Rights Association (IHD) Diyarbakır Branch recently reported that 469 corpses have been secretly buried in 114 mass graves in Turkey since 1989. Over the past years, authorities have unearthed 171 corpses from 26 mass graves. The Government refuses to investigate or acknowledge this. Tens of thousands of Kurds have moved to Europe and carried this struggle with them. Isn’t this is the real tragedy for the Turkish nation?
I was delighted that after 12 years of my campaigning for the Turkish Kurds, I was able to visit Turkey and be able to see the development of Turkey and its changing approach to the everyday life of the Kurds on social, cultural, legal, constitutional and political levels. I saw great progress… seeing the Turkish President join in the Kurdish New Year, singing the National anthem in the Kurdish language is a sea change in Turkey because there used to be a complete denial of existence of anything Kurdish.
The Kurds are successfully transforming their fight from an armed struggle to a political one with even new talks with Sinn Fein to look at the Irish model of political transformation. The Kurdish political party, the BDP, won the 2009 elections in 99 municipalities, a gain of 45 municipalities with a number of Kurdish Mayors elected to run their Kurdish Towns and Cities. Even the clubs and restaurants are now prepared to have Kurdish live music where the young Kurds can stand up and join in Kurdish dances. Economic prosperity (possibly influenced by invisible income from those exiled to EU!) appears to be spreading in the Kurdish lands.
However, the change has been slow and laced with bitter opposition and resentment from the ruling regime that is more influenced by the international pressure on Turkey. I say this because the change agents, i.e. the Ruling Party AKP and the Military is making all the right noises to the outside world, while finding new and innovative ways to undermine real development in Kurdish regions of the country. The old approach to undermine anything non-Turkish prevails in the fabric of the ruling regime and appears visible in the controlling government, military, civil service, civil police, secret police and judicial institutions.
Diyarbakir is a pleasant place to visit. It is divided by the old city that has retained its character and the new modern city outside the city wall that is comparable to other cities in Eastern Europe. Our Hotel was inside the old City Wall and so we had five days to taste the culture of the old city. The City Hall and the High Court were outside the Wall but a walk away and quite modern but High Court was quite a run down building. We met the Kurdish Mayor of the Old City who had a very appealing philosophy of localism, bottom-up democracy and the multiculturalism, especially for a Liberal Democrat like me! However he was unable to pursue much of these policies because of lack of approvals from the local Governor or constitution.
Democracy was the most used word in our discussions. But the real democracy appeared to be missing from the working of the central government. The election rules are tilted and deliberately perverted to avoid candidates from minority communities from being elected to the Parliament. All local elected Municipalities and Mayors have to have their budgets approved by the non-elected central government appointed Governor (one-man Quango!) for each area. It was explained that in one Kurdish Town “Mardin” on the 2009 Election Day in the late afternoon, the police came to the polling station, asked everyone including the official staff to leave the polling station room for a short period and took control of the station. Later the results showed that the election result was unexpectedly against all trends and returned to a victory for the ruling party!
The real political control is carefully held by the central government. It appears to be a top down nanny state and we need to study how the minorities other than Kurdish, i.e. The Alevi Shia Muslims (many of whom are Kurds), the Christians from Syria or Armenia and others are quietly surviving underground and are affected by the Governing Turks. Our discussions gave us indications that these minorities are also politically persecuted to varying degrees. So there needs to be a proper EU level investigation on how the democratic processes are being applied in Turkey.
The current round of court trials of nearly 1500 Kurds around the country is the result of this incredible new battleground created by the government. The Turkish government has been borrowing the anti-terror laws to set up secret police operations to bug the leading Kurdish politicians and Human Rights activists for some years now. The approach has been simple, Label the Kurdish arms struggle movement PKK as Terrorist and then outlaw any political organisation such as KCK or individual politicians and human rights workers caught discussing these organisations. Tap the telephones and use these as evidence. Just as it has happened to Muslims in the US and UK, Turkey has managed to create an impression in Turkey, that all Kurds are Terrorists.
In April 2009, after the elections success for Kurdish BDP, the government ordered the arrests of leading Kurdish figures on trumped up charges which would not hold up as valid permissible evidence in international courts and arrested some 1500 leading Kurdish citizens and is still holding them in prison without trial. These are leading politicians in ordinary prisons 4 to a cell and the families are suffering without any incomes for these households. They are presumed guilty without the trial and most pleadings to bail for them have been rejected outright.
The Trial in Diyarbakir highlighted the lack of independence between, the government, the secret police anti-terror squads, prosecution service and the judicial service. Any objective standards of permissible evidence or rules on detention periods or court procedures or defendants’ legal rights appeared to have been quashed for these trials. These high court trials are carried out in proper Kangaroo courts. These are just the new means to put the brakes on Kurdish community and prevent them from succeeding in political influence in the country.
The nationally controlled TV news continues to give debates and impressions that Kurdish politicians and Kurdish Civil Servants are all terrorists and in it together. The International observers have been arriving in Diyarbakir from different parts of the EU. The Kurdish media took many interviews and put these on the air but the National TV was carefully watching the observers from distance. After the second day of the trial, the International observers were refused entry to witness any further court hearings. We managed to get in on the 3rd day by persuading a senior security officer to take a personal decision to let us in. However the 10 other EU visitors including MEPs were refused permission on the 4th day.
All persons in authority from the government to the judges are Turks and all accused and detained and defending lawyers appeared to be Kurds. All the powers are firmly controlled and in the hands of Turks themselves. Given the abuse of the whole judicial, civil and political framework to achieve these trials, the Turkish Government appeared to have been itself put on trial in the eyes of the international community. It is unimaginable that such a political regime could be tolerated within European Union? Turkey is a country where we would currently struggle to prove its credentials as a real democracy. The Turkish people appear to be ready to join the EU but it is questionable whether the regime is?
There is no solution in sight. The current ceasefire between PKK and Government may end in March and there is no indication of any real movement from the government whether this can be extended to avoid a new era of armed battles between the two. The real loss will be the civilians caught in the violence. EU needs to speak out now and bare some pressure on to the Turkish government to avoid further bloodshed.
Those western nations engaged with Turkey influenced by their own “national interests” need to wake up to Turkey’s credentials on human rights and democracy before sleepwalking into allowing it to join EU in its current state. The real solution may eventually lay in the hands of the Turkish people themselves and their ability to realise that freedom and democracy are hard won and often missing in the Middle-East. There is a wind of change in the Middle-East and they may be able to free themselves from such an oppressive regime. Do they have the courage to stand up? Or perhaps the Turkish regime itself can realise that its time for real change before it is too late for them!
Nasser Butt is a British Liberal Democrat Party politician who is a Spokesperson for the Party’s Muslims Forum and its Friends of Palestine Group. He is an internationalist and a deep liberal; a long-time supporter of campaigns for human rights in a number of countries including Kashmir, Palestine and Pakistan. He was an elected councillor in the London Borough of Sutton and later stood for Parliament in 2005 and 2010. He is on the London Regional Select Committee.
He has served five charities in the last 20 years, fighting poverty, social exclusion, and minority persecution, children caught up in wars, campaigning against criminalising communities and for civil liberties.