Reports
EUTCC Background paper 2006Third International Conference on EU, Turkey and the Kurds European Parliament 16th – 17th October 2006
The EU-Turkey Civic Commission (EUTCC) was established in November 2004 as the outcome of the first international conference on ‘The EU, Turkey and the Kurds’, held in the European Parliament in Brussels on 22 – 23 November 2004. The conference brought together MEPs, other politicians, human rights defenders (HRDs), writers, academics, lawyers and experts on the Kurdish issue to exchange ideas and generate dialogue on the Turkey-EU accession process. The aim of the EUTCC is to promote the accession of Turkey as a member of the EU, in order to guarantee respect for human and minority rights and a peaceful, democratic and long-term solution to the Kurdish situation. To this end, the EUTCC will monitor and conduct regular audits of the European Commission’s performance in ensuring Turkey’s full compliance with the accession criteria, as defined within the meaning of the accession agreements. It will also make recommendations of measures that could advance and protect human rights; act as a point of contact and exchange information with the institutions of the EU and other governmental and non-governmental organisations; and raise public awareness of issues affecting the EUTCC’s work or mandate. Turkish membership of the EU will dramatically change the lives of Turks, Kurds and Europeans, and offers the most favourable opportunity for decades to reach a much-needed negotiated solution to the Kurdish question. It is vital that the institutions of the EU diligently fulfil their obligations to scrutinise Turkey’s progress on meeting agreed standards in the accession process, in order that Turkish accession retains credibility and fulfils its potential as a force for democratisation in Turkey. During the first international conference in Brussels, concern was expressed that the accession process had to date fallen short of robustly attending to human rights concerns or openly and adequately addressing the situation of the Kurds. The EUTCC was conceived by the co-hosts of the first international conference in Brussels: the Kurdish Human Rights Project, the Rafto Foundation and medico international. These organisations, together with the Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales, became the founders of the EUTCC. One of the undertakings of the EUTCC is to establish a series of yearly conferences held at the European Parliament to consider the progress of Turkey’s EU accession bid. The EUTCC conference is now in its third year and has, this year, chosen as its theme ‘Time for Justice, Dialogue and Solution’. Introduction For Turkey’s citizens, EU accession offers an unprecedented opportunity to finally see Turkey embrace European standards on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. NGOs interested in advancing democratisation in Turkey, including the Kurdish Human Rights Project, medico international, the Rafto Foundation and the Bar Human Rights Committee, have universally welcomed the prospect of EU membership as a catalyst for far-reaching and much-needed change in the country. Initially at least, it looked as if our hopes might be realised. The wealth of EU-inspired reforms embarked upon by the current AKP government appeared groundbreaking, and indeed many important changes ensued. The EUTCC gives credit to Turkey for the EU-inspired improvements in its human rights record, though it maintains concerns over Turkey’s record of compliance with accession criteria. At the first annual EUTCC conference held in November 2004 in Brussels, the view was expressed that the European Commission had over-stated Turkey’s level of democratisation in its then recent report on the country’s progress towards EU membership, and that Turkey’s fulfilment of accession standards was in fact questionable. The second annual conference of the EUTCC, held in September 2005, was called to evaluate developments in respect of the EU-Turkey Accession process since the decision of the European Council to enter into accession negotiations on 17 December 2004. The conference noted with alarm the escalating military conflict in the south-east region of Turkey and the failure of certain state institutions to adhere to its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights in accordance with the spirit and the terms of its own recent reform packages and commitments given under the accession process. It called for Turkey and other Member States to help foster a climate of peace so that a democratic platform for dialogue can be established between Turks, Kurds, and other constituent peoples and minorities who are resident in Turkey. Since the opening of accession negotiations in October 2005, these concerns over the course of the pro-EU reform process in Turkey and the escalating violence in the southeast have only increased. The surge in the reform initiatives now appears to be a series of somewhat token gestures engineered to tick EU-mandated boxes. Human rights groups in the country now report high instances of human rights violations and these developments have made it difficult for observers to keep faith in the validity of Turkey’s commitment to advancing democratic principles. For Turkey’s more than 15 million Kurds, the setbacks in Turkey’s reform initiative are particularly disappointing. Heralded as the best opportunity in nearly a century to end Kurdish oppression, the EU accession process seemed to offer the Kurds a secure future where their identity was recognised and their rights protected. Now, with the Kurdish question seemingly sidelined from accession negotiations, at least in the public arena, and reforms ostensibly granting increased rights to the Kurds looking increasingly meaningless, Kurdish enthusiasm for accession is waning somewhat and disillusion is setting in. Meanwhile, the under-acknowledged armed violence in the Kurdish regions is increasing in intensity. In spite of these concerns, the EUTCC believes that the EU route remains the greatest hope for securing a peaceful, democratic and pluralist Turkey in which a negotiated political solution to the Kurdish question is realised, but only if progress towards membership is based on tangible improvements in the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms and tackling the plight of the Kurds is firmly integrated into accession negotiations. The EUTCC does, though, anticipate that during the future course of Turkey’s accession bid, the Union will ensure that the prospect of EU membership remains a powerful incentive for change in Turkey by adopting a more robust approach to ensuring Turkish compliance with accession standards than has so far been exhibited. Voices advocating for the placing of human rights and the democratic resolution of the Kurdish question at the centre of accession negotiations must be heard in Brussels, and we must not shy away from adopting a critical approach to EU decision-making. 1. TURKEY’S ROUTE TO ACCESSION The EU granted Turkey candidature in 1999, and in 2002 the Council of the EU (‘the Council’) agreed that accession negotiations would commence ‘without delay’ if, following a Commission report on Turkey’s fulfilment of the Copenhagen Criteria and a subsequent recommendation by the European Commission (‘the Commission’) on the appropriateness of opening negotiations, EU leaders at the Council decided that Turkey met the required standards. On 6 October 2004 the Commission issued its recommendation as anticipated, concluding that Turkey ‘sufficiently’ fulfilled the criteria necessary to open accession negotiations. Certain conditions were imposed, including that Turkey should first be obliged to bring into force six specified pieces of legislation. On 17 December 2004, EU leaders largely endorsed the Commission’s recommendation that Turkey was ready to begin accession negotiations at the Brussels meeting of the Council, and envisaged that talks would commence on 3 October 2005. By 1 June 2005 Turkey had enacted each of the six pieces of legislation which were set out in the Council’s decision of 17 December 2004 as prerequisites to the opening of formal accession talks. On 29 June 2005 the Commission issued its draft ‘Negotiating Framework for Turkey’, a document which outlines the guiding principles and procedures for accession negotiations. The Framework had to be accepted by all 25 current member states before Turkey could commence formal accession negotiations. Turkey signed an EU protocol on 29 July 2005 which extends the existing Ankara-EU Customs Union – an agreement that came into force on 31 December 1995 pursuant to the 1963 EU-Turkey Association Agreement – to the 10 newest EU member states incorporated into the Union on 1 May 2004. The 17 December 2004 Council decision had mandated that Turkey must achieve this expansion of the Customs Union prior to the opening of formal accession talks. On 3 October 2005, European and Turkish leaders welcomed the commencement of official European Union Accession talks with Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s insistence on nothing short of full membership for Turkey paid off as the Negotiation Framework for full accession was finally agreed at the last minute after Austria finally conceded, after the intervention of the US, on its request that Turkey be offered an option short of full membership. The Decision of the Council of the EU The decision by the Council on 17 December 2004 to open accession talks with Turkey was formally based upon fulfilment of the criteria for EU membership as determined at the Copenhagen meeting of the Council in 1993 (the ‘Copenhagen Criteria’). These are minimum standards which all states must fulfil before they can become recognised as official EU negotiating partners. The political elements of the Copenhagen Criteria require that candidate countries must have achieved: ‘The stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.’ At the Helsinki European Council of 1999, it was stated that Turkey was a candidate for EU membership on the basis of the same criteria as other candidate states. The Commission’s regular report on Turkey’s progress towards accession, submitted on 6 October 2004, examined in detail Turkey’s fulfilment of the political elements of the Copenhagen Criteria. Despite citing substantial reservations on human and minority rights reforms, the Commission cast a broadly positive light on Turkey’s progress and subsequently concluded in its recommendation that ‘Turkey sufficiently fulfils the political criteria’ and that accession negotiations should accordingly be opened. The conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council had set out in December 2002 that the December 2004 decision would be based upon whether or not ‘Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria’, and therefore the Commission recommendation represented an apparent lessening of EU requirements on Turkish compliance with the Copenhagen Criteria. The Commission’s recommendation in turn informed the 17 December 2004 decision by the Council, which followed the Commission’s line that the Copenhagen Criteria were ‘sufficiently’ fulfilled and that entry talks could begin. The Council, in its December 2004 decision, goes on to invite the Commission to continue to monitor Turkey’s progress in political reforms.
The Negotiating Framework for Turkey, prepared by the European Commission at the behest of the Council in its 17 December 2004 decision, was drawn up in accordance with the Council decision and largely reinforces its findings on the opening of accession negotiations. The text of the framework was finally agreed at the official opening of accession talks on 3 October 2005. In terms of the future of accession negotiations, the Framework mandates that their advancement will be measured ‘in particular’ against a series of requirements which include the political elements of the Copenhagen Criteria. The Commission continues to monitor Turkey’s progress and report on this regularly to the Council, and these reports provide the basis of the Union’s final decision as to whether the conditions for the conclusion of negotiations are met. Importantly, the Framework explicitly states that the Commission must confirm that Turkey has fulfilled the aforementioned series of requirements (to include the Copenhagen Criteria) before a positive decision on accession will be taken. The human rights ‘break clause’ is also restated. Accession negotiations are set to proceed in the usual way through inter-governmental conferences between the EU and Turkey, in which Turkey’s current legislation and administrative structures are comprehensively ‘screened’ against each chapter of the acquis communautaire: that is, the body of economic, social, administrative and environmental legislation that all member states of the EU must implement. It is stated in the Framework that the acquis includes ‘the content, principles and political objectives of the Treaties on which the Union is founded’, thus Turkey will have to abide by the provision that ‘The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.’ The Framework confirms that to allow for the financial aspects of accession to be fully considered, negotiations will not be concluded until after the Financial Framework for the period from 2014 has been established. This means, in short, that Turkey will almost certainly not accede to the EU before 2014. The Next Stage The European Commission, as part of its monitoring duties, annually reports on the way in which political reforms are consolidated and broadened on the basis of a revised Accession Partnership priorities, for example, those released in January of this year. The Commission will release its next Regular Report on 8 November 2006. Following the screening process, Turkey’s position on the chapters of the acquis will be drawn up and negotiations will commence to determine the terms under which Turkey will adopt, implement and enforce the acquis, including the granting of any transitional arrangements whereby possibilities exist for phasing in compliance with certain rules. The Council, acting on Commission proposals, will draw up benchmarks for the provisional closure of each chapter. The results of the negotiations are incorporated into accession treaties to be ratified both by Turkey and by the other member states, and it is likely that at this stage debates will occur within EU countries over the desirability of enlargement and any pertinent issues. Provided that the accession treaties are ratified by all existing member states, Turkey would then become a full EU member itself, obliged to comply with EU legislation and rules.
The decision to open accession talks with Turkey was ostensibly based on its fulfilment of the objective, EU-defined Copenhagen Criteria. On paper, the most significant impediment to Turkish accession prior to 2002 has been its poor human rights record and hence, inability to meet the political elements of the Copenhagen Criteria; for years, Turkey has lagged behind Europe in meeting even the most basic human rights standards. Turkey’s accession bid is, though, also influenced by the complex backdrop of issues relating to European politics, international security and economic affairs against which it is progressing. Turkey’s forthcoming accession is strongly welcomed in some parts of the world, including by Britain and the US, as potentially creating a ‘bridge’ between Europe and the wider Muslim world. In today’s climate of alienation, such a move has the potential to endow the EU with a strategic reach into the heart of the Middle East, and to establish an example of a progressive, secular state with a majority Muslim population within the European fold. Building closer relations with ‘moderate’ Islam is regarded as important in breaking down barriers and ultimately combating terrorist attacks carried out by extremists in the name of Islam. It is further hoped among the pro-Turkish elements in the leadership of the EU that the process of entry negotiation will provide clear incentives for further reform in Turkey, and that its course towards accession will have a reforming influence on government behaviour. Key EU member states such as the UK continue to champion Turkish membership, but the doubts still remain over whether Turkey can fully attain the standards of a full EU member. Austrian Chancellor, Wolfgang Schuessel, has recently expressed disbelief that Turkey’s negotiations with the EU would end in full membership. This scepticism is in part attributable to concerns that Turkey’s size and underdevelopment will potentially generate strain on EU budgets. Moreover, the presence of a large, underdeveloped state with a predominantly Muslim population within the borders of Europe is generating substantial disquiet. The dictates of electoral politics within the EU and the current predominance of anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim feeling suggest that European governments may move to allay public fears that Turkish membership would alter the cultural makeup and geographic reach of the EU and ‘flood’ it with immigrant labour. (It is worth recalling here that similar hysterical fears of ‘mass influxes’ of labour migrants from the ten new member states joining the EU in May 2004 proved unfounded). Public opposition to Turkish accession is seen as a significant factor in the ‘no’ votes in the 2005 French and Dutch referenda on the EU constitution, in May and June respectively, as well as the ensuing political crisis in Brussels has done little to assist Turkey’s EU bid. The EU’s Enlargement Commissioner, Olli Rehn, has vehemently insisted that full accession remains the endgame of negotiations with Turkey. However, the probability of France’s pro-accession President Jacques Chirac being replaced by a more sceptical Nicholas Sarkozy and the recent successes of the ‘Euro-sceptic’ Christian Democrats in Germany portend the probable demise of Franco-German support for Turkey joining the EU. Should the anti-Turkey camp ultimately win through and the accession programme remain unfulfilled the current and potential positive changes in Turkey sparked by the promise of EU membership could be undone. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has successfully forged a delicate balance between diverse interests in favour of the pro-EU reform process, which may be endangered if talks over full accession break down. There is the potential that a backlash would ensue with a regression to a reactionary and repressive system of government, the possible strengthening of political Islam and/or renewed military intervention in civilian government. At the same time, the EUTCC international conference of November 2004 held in Brussels, documented concern over the agenda of those in favour of accession: specifically that the desire to integrate Turkey into Europe may be overwhelming objective analysis of whether or not it meets the required standards in areas including human and minority rights. Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn referred to enlargement in July 2005 as the ‘first and foremost security policy in our era which has been described, right or wrong, as the clash of civilisations’. Political factors in the EU decision-making process are by no means controversial in itself; to the contrary, the very nature of a democratic political body is that a range of strategic concerns necessarily shape its actions. With accession negotiations now in progress, the EUTCC hopes that strict adherence to EU-prescribed standards on human rights will necessitate finding a solution to the Kurdish issue. Kurdish hopes for accession The Kurds in Turkey comprise over 15 million of Turkey’s population of 70 million, potentially making up over three percent of the inhabitants of the EU and thus representing a significant population group. Kurds have been, on the whole, supportive of Turkey entering the EU. For them, accession presents the possibility of an end to decades of repression and abuse at the hands of the Turkish state, and offers an unprecedented chance to ensure that their identity is acknowledged and respected. Importantly, the prospect of EU accession was reasonably presumed to bring into focus the Kurdish question itself and to demand EU facilitation of enhanced dialogue on its resolution. The ‘carrot’ of EU accession, notwithstanding the serious human rights problems which remain, has proved capable of inspiring dramatic change in Turkey where other incentives have failed. The professed centrality of human and minority rights to the accession process affords the Kurds valuable opportunities to press for their rights and to ensure that improving the human rights situation in the Kurdish regions is at the heart of Turkey’s EU membership bid. The European Commission is tasked with playing a central role in monitoring reform under the first pillar of the three pillar approach to accession set out in the Commission Resolution of October 2004, and according to the Negotiating Framework it will closely monitor and report to the Council on Turkey’s fulfilment of its human rights commitments. Reports by the Commission, including on Turkey’s compliance with the Copenhagen Criteria, will determine the conclusion of negotiations and Turkey’s progression to membership. The representation of Kurdish rights and interests to the Commission as it carries out these duties would go towards ensuring that the plight of the Kurds is closely incorporated into the human and minority rights elements of accession negotiations, and so impose obligations on Turkey to recognise and abide by its obligations to the Kurdish people. The human rights ‘break clause’, mentioned earlier, could also prove an important rallying point for the Kurds. A ‘serious and persistent breach’ of human rights can lead the Commission, on its own initiative or on the request of one third of the member states, to recommend the suspension of negotiations. This was recently reiterated by the EU Enlargement Commissioner who has been quoted as stating that EU membership talks could be suspended because of Turkey’s reticence to move forward with its relations with Cyprus. More broadly, accession heralds new possibilities to press for human rights, to mainstream Kurdish concerns and to draw attention in Brussels and elsewhere to the need for political dialogue between Turkey and the Kurds. This observation is, though, qualified by the fact that the situation of the Kurds received rather scant consideration in the run-up to the Council decision of December 17 2004, with political debate and media outlets focusing instead on immigration concerns, Turkey’s economic underdevelopment and, to a lesser extent, the broader human rights picture. Where the Kurds were mentioned, this was virtually exclusively in relation to Turkey’s non-recognition of cultural and linguistic rights; virtually nothing has been made of the resurgence of armed conflict and Turkey’s long-standing , albeit occasionally thawing, unwillingness to countenance a political solution to the Kurdish issue. Full EU membership will impose checks on the behaviour of the Turkish state. From inside the EU, Turkey can be brought under the sway of liberal democratic ideals, and transgressions of acceptable behaviour can be controlled through political influence and legal action. Perhaps most importantly for the Kurds, the accession process appeared to promise EU facilitation of a politically negotiated solution to the Kurdish situation. The EU has a clear responsibility to address the Kurdish question, in view both of the continuing defiance of the political elements of the Copenhagen Criteria which Turkey’s treatment of the Kurds engenders, and Europe’s role in creating the Turkish-Kurdish conflict in the wake of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Kurds have invested much hope in seeing the establishment of dialogue between Kurdish representatives and the Turkish state set in motion by the EU, and other regional bodies including the Council of Europe have endorsed the need to establish a mechanism to foster communication between the Kurds and the Turks. The prospect of dialogue was given a boost in August of 2005 when Prime Minister Erdoğan met with several Kurdish intellectuals, visited Diyarbakr and emphasised the need to resolve through democratic means, what he himself described, for the first time, as ‘the Kurdish issue’. The EU-Turkey Civic Commission The EUTCC sees the EU accession process as offering by far the greatest hope to achieve genuine respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Turkey, and for the realisation of lasting peace in the south-east of the country. The potential of Turkey’s EU membership bid to instigate dramatic improvements has been demonstrated by recent advancements in the reform process; Turkey has achieved far more in terms of progress towards fulfilling international standards on human rights and democratisation in the past two years than over previous decades. Accession still offers the most realistic possibilities for facilitating dialogue and reaching an end to years of subjugation for the Kurds, and these possibilities must be harnessed and built upon by those in a position to influence developments in Ankara and Brussels. The EUTCC firmly believes that for the Kurds, Turkey is far better inside than outside the EU, and it therefore supports the Turkey-EU accession process. Despite substantial reservations over how far Turkey has moved towards fulfilling the Copenhagen Criteria (expanded upon below), (the opening of accession negotiations in October 2005 is on balance a positive step and, it is anticipated), the best course for prompting further democratisation in Turkey. The EUTCC is concerned in particular by the apparent revision of the level of compliance with accession standards required by the EU as a condition for the opening of negotiations with Turkey. That is, the change from the 2002 condition that Turkey must ‘fulfil’ the Copenhagen Criteria to the conclusion in December 2004 that Turkey ‘sufficiently’ fulfils the criteria. The EUTCC contends that ultimately, if the EU does not compel Turkey to wholly fulfil its obligations under the Copenhagen Criteria prior to joining the EU, serious consequences for the Kurds and for others who face oppression and violence in the country will follow. It would also threaten to significantly undermine the democratic credentials of the Union itself as well as add merit to the fear of ‘mass migration’. Thus while the EUTCC gives its full backing to the commencement of formal accession talks, its continued support for the accession process is dependent upon the institutions of the EU robustly fulfilling their obligations to ensure that Turkey is not permitted to enter the Union before true democratisation has taken place and a lasting resolution of the Kurdish issue is secured. There should be no more compromises on Turkey’s realisation of the necessary EU standards on human and minority rights in the path to reform. The founders of the EUTCC, at the 2005 annual conference, expressed grave concern over lack of implementation and other developments in the sphere of human rights. The conference noted with alarm the escalating military conflict in the south-east region of Turkey and the failure of certain state institutions to adhere to its own obligations under the ECHR in accordance with the spirit and terms of its own recent reform packages and commitments given under the accession process. The EUTCC is committed to carrying forward the pro-EU reform process and encouraging Turkey in its endeavour towards achieving a more tolerant, European system of government, as well as tendering constructive criticism on gaps and difficulties encountered. These goals are achieved through targeted monitoring and evaluation, performed with active and sustained input from the civil society sector and facilitated by the EUTCC. Engaging key figures within the accession process in Brussels, Turkish government representatives and other European politicians with the work of the EUTCC will be crucial to ensuring that its work generates a healthy and proactive dialogue and information exchange, and that the EU is held to its stated commitment to human rights and democracy. The EUTCC accords Turkey the recognition rightly earned for the tentative steps taken towards a consensus within the country in favour of liberal democracy. Prime Minister Erdoğan, confronted by influential, reactionary elites entrenched within the Turkish administration, is negotiating a difficult course towards EU standards on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The groundwork for today’s reform process was laid by years of courageous efforts by human rights defenders, Kurds and their supporters in Turkey, defying anti-democratic legislation and braving harassment and torture to uphold fundamental rights. However, the EUTCC remains concerned that Turkey is moving apace towards EU membership while serious and well-substantiated failings in the pro-EU reform process are being skirted over and the plight of the Kurds appears to have been to all intents and purposes written out of the Turkey-EU equation. The approach to human and minority rights in the accession process adopted by European Commission has glossed over important ongoing problems in the country and presented an undeservedly positive picture of Turkish reform efforts. The Kurdish issue, which is the most complex and deep-seated impediment to democratisation in Turkey, has received little open recognition by the European Commission. We are, though, heartened that other institutions within the EU have started to grasp the importance of resolution of the Kurdish issue to Turkey’s reform process. The European Parliament and the European Council have both voiced concerns regarding the reform process and called on Turkey to seek a democratic solution to the Kurdish problem. The EUTCC’s qualms over Turkey’s democratisation agenda have only intensified. Turkey’s commitment to human rights reform appears to be waning – indeed it has arguably become retrogressive – and EU requirements are often not met. For the Kurds, the vision of EU membership ushering in a new-found era of peace, security and respect for human rights in the Kurdish-dominated south-east is in danger of becoming no more than an unfulfilled promise. The following sections of this paper set out some of the EUTCC’s primary concerns arising in the context of Turkey’s bid for EU membership, and its view on the most constructive ways of moving forward in the accession process. EU enlargement is an important impetus for advancing peace and stability throughout the continent and over recent years has been increasingly promoted as a means of furthering commitment within Europe to shared principles and values, including human rights. Through the approval of the Copenhagen Criteria at the 1993 Council the protection of human rights became an explicit element in preparing a candidate state for membership, and as such enlargement can act as a potent force for change in the human rights environments of potential EU members. The EUTCC hopes that this will ultimately prove the case in Turkey, but it has significant reservations over the present course of pro-EU human rights reform in the country. Fulfilment of the Copenhagen Criteria? The EUTCC opposes those strands of thinking suggesting that Turkey is somehow too large, too poor, too geographically distant or too Muslim to join the EU as a full member. It therefore welcomes public assertions by EU leaders and the statement in the Negotiating Framework which defy apparent public opposition within existing EU member states to Turkish membership and reiterate EU assurances on this point. Notwithstanding this, it is submitted that the conclusion that Turkey had ‘sufficiently’ fulfilled the Copenhagen Criteria misrepresented Turkey’s progress on human rights, specifically minority rights. There can be no doubt that Turkey has outwardly moved towards closer compliance with international standards on human rights, democracy and the rule of law through the enactment of a noteworthy series of reforms over a very short period of time. There have been some, albeit faltering, improvements in human rights generally: the legal regulation of torture has been tightened and the prohibition on broadcasting and teaching in the Kurdish language has been relaxed somewhat. Permissible detention periods have been shortened and the death penalty has been abolished. It is also true to say that the current AKP Government has staked much on achieving EU accession. It has taken steps to weaken the power of the unaccountable state by reducing, at least formally, the traditional influence of the old elites in government, though it should be added that the military continues to exert enormous influence through both formal and informal channels. The AKP has also refused to pander to the religious right on issues such as education. There do, though, remain enormous outstanding problems with Turkey’s record on human and minority rights which render the conclusion that the political elements of the Copenhagen Criteria are ‘sufficiently’ fulfilled difficult to sustain. The 2005 Progress Report by the European Commission on Turkey’s moves towards accession presents the reform process in Turkey in a more positive light than is deserved. While recognising that reports of torture and ill treatment remain ‘frequent’, the report claims that ‘incidence is diminishing’. The European Commission’s report does draw reference to a large number of grave human and minority rights problems in the realms of freedom of expression, the protection of minorities, the fight against torture and ill treatment and the freedom of association and peaceful assembly. The report refers to the Penal Code as having removed many aggravated sentences attached to a number of offences committed through the media, but states that some remain. In draws particular reference to Article 301, calling it ‘vaguely worded’ and mentions that ‘individuals expressing non-violent opinions have been convicted and prosecuted’. However, the Commission’s report focused on formal legislative and administrative reforms and put forward little de facto analysis of the situation on the ground. It failed in its wording and emphasis to reflect the depth and severity of the continued human rights violations in Turkey, at times skimming over significant shortcomings in the reform process and presenting ongoing violations as mere qualifications to generally encouraging progress. When referring to the situation in the east and south-east of the country ‘where most people are of Kurdish origin’ it describes progress as ‘slow and uneven.’ It rightly describes that ‘[i]n some cases, the situation has even deteriorated’. However, the report fails to comprehensively recognise the myriad injustices and discriminations faced by Turkey’s Kurds, as a constitutionally unrecognised minority group. In a number of sections a positive ‘spin’ was put on Turkey’s failings even where serious and ongoing abuses of key human rights were detailed at length, sometimes by emphasising Turkey’s efforts at compliance rather than the results achieved. Other important factors central to any assessment of the situation in Turkey were substantially overlooked, notably the Kurdish issue. The European Commission’s evaluation of Turkey’s progress to accession released in 2005 is once again inconsistent in its assessment of the reform process. On the one hand, the Commission states that Turkey is sufficiently fulfilling the Copenhagen Criteria and commended Turkey for its flurry of legislative reforms and the positive moves that it took as regards international human rights instruments with the signing of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention Against Torture. However, on the other hand, it criticised the rate of progress towards meeting the Copenhagen Criteria, stating that it had slowed and was inconsistent with instances of human rights abuses still being reported and that there is an urgent need to implement the reforms in force and take further legislative initiatives. In the next update report, the Commission must be unequivocal regarding minority rights and the situation in the Kurdish regions, leaving aside euphemisms employed to avoid using the word ‘Kurd’. Recognition of the link between the Kurdish identity and breaches of economic, social and cultural rights is only the first step. Acknowledgement from the EU that the Kurds are at greater risk of abuses of fundamental civil and political rights is equally important. The current human rights situation Of further concern is the fact that it is now becoming increasingly difficult to conceive of Turkey’s outwardly dramatic string of reforms enacted over the past four years as much more than an attempt to do the minimum possible to satisfy EU criteria in order to garner the economic benefits of accession without ceding to the political criteria. Human rights groups continue to report large numbers of breaches of human rights standards, with some in the Kurdish regions even attesting to a rise in violations. In 2005, the Human Rights Associations of Turkey (TİHV) found 193 of the 675 people who applied to them were found to have valid claims of torture. By contrast in the first five months of 2006, TIHV was already dealing with 113 new confirmed torture survivors. In addition, five people have died in police custody and at least seven in prison. Human rights advocates claimed that ‘only a small percentage of detainees reported torture and ill treatment because they feared retaliation or believed that complaining was futile.’6 Regional NGOs have reported that authorities are deliberately using less detectable methods and adopting more devious practices including forms of psychological torture such as sexual harassment and humiliation, mock executions and sleep deprivation8. Another alarming development is that whilst torture and ill-treatment in detention are thought to have decreased, cases of torture and ill treatment outside detention and are still common; the number of reports of such cases actually increased in 2005. The report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) following a December 2005 visit to Turkey published 6 September 2006 describes an increase in instances of ill-treatment being inflicted outside of law enforcement establishments, in isolated areas such as forests. Opening accession negotiations with a country which sanctioned the internationally prohibited practice from the highest levels of government could not be countenanced, so it was imperative that there was found to be no systematic torture in Turkey before formal talks began. Encouragingly, during 2005, courts investigated numerous allegations of torture by state security forces. However, perpetrators are rarely adequately punished. In 2005, there were 232 convictions out of the 531 cases that actually went to full verdict. Meanwhile a staggering 1005 were acquitted. Of the convictions, only 37 carried jail sentences, and the rest received fines or other reprimands. Turkey has also failed to implement much-needed independent inspections of detention facilities in spite of a recommendation to this effect by the Council of Europe’s anti-torture committee. In such instances, Effective medical examinations of detainees become crucially important with the increase of more sophisticated, less-visible torture methods. The medical examinations are, though, inadequate; they are usually brief and informal, and detainees have been refused access to a second examination by the authorities. More training of medical practitioners is needed as only 300 out of the 80,000 doctors in Turkey have the forensic skills to diagnose instances of torture. By abolishing ‘incommunicado’ detention and guaranteeing detainees immediate access to a lawyer, Turkey had sent a strong signal that it would make good on its promise to eradicate the practice of torture. In the case of Turkey, though, old habits die hard. The new Anti-Terror law (discussed in more depth below) which came into force in July 2006, did away with a suspect’s automatic right to see their lawyer, as Article 9 states that during detention, the detained suspect’s right to meet with a lawyer can be restricted for a period up to 24 hours – the period when the detainee is at the greatest risk of being tortured. With instances of torture still being reported in the Kurdish regions of Turkey, the enactment of this provision could not come at a worse moment. It invites the practice of torture at a time when Turkey should be doing everything in its power to stamp out this heinous activity. The right of freedom of association and assembly are still heavily restricted. Open criticism of the government or peaceful activities which touch on taboo subjects such as the army, the Kurdish question or the Armenian genocide are met with reprisals – anti-democratic legislative provisions are used to harass and prosecute dissension, administrative restrictions on the formation of associations still resemble those of a police state and assemblies and public meetings are regularly met with police harassment, violence and detentions. Scenes of non-violent women demonstrators being beaten with truncheons and dispersed with tear gas in March 2005 were reportedly greeted by the EU with shock and concern at the use of ‘disproportionate force’. Throughout 2006, security forces have continued to adopt a hard-line attitude towards unarmed civilians and aggressive dispersal tactics during pro-Kurdish protests. There have been a number of violent clashes between police and civilians, with reports of police firing on civilians and children. A fact finding mission sent by KHRP to the south-east region in April 2006 found that the rule of law was clearly put aside during the security forces’ handling of the violence that erupted following the funerals of PKK guerrillas at the end of March 2006. Police used indiscriminate, disproportionate and lethal force, clearly condoned by their superiors, chillingly reminiscent to many of the security force’s behaviour under the state of emergency during the 1990s. Ten civilians lost their lives, including three children; hundreds of civilians were detained, many of whom have alleged that there were tortured during their detention. Combating violence against women is another key area in which the momentum of reform is dwindling. Domestic violence, estimated by women’s groups to affect up to a half of all Turkish women, remains rooted in traditional patriarchal conceptions of femininity and the proper role of women. Violence against women is a pronounced problem in the Kurdish regions. Perpetrators are rarely investigated or charged by the police, and women are not protected against aggressive husbands or other male relatives. Professor Yakin Ertürk, the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on violence against women visited Turkey in May 2006 to investigate suicides of women. Senior justice and law enforcement officials in provinces informed the Special Rapporteur about cases in which ‘there were reasonable grounds to believe that the suicide was instigated or that a so-called honour killing was disguised as a suicide or an accident.’ While the legal system provides for equality, the Special Rapporteur found that in practice ‘authorities too often lack the willingness to implement these laws and protect women from violence.’ Importantly, Turkey has failed to respond to the well-evidenced calls from women’s groups for the erection of more shelters for women fleeing abuse – currently there are only 8 to cater for Turkey’s population of 70 million. For citizens in the Kurdish regions, the picture appears even bleaker. The Diyarbakır branch of the Human Rights Association (İHD) reported that following the 17 December decision to open accession negotiations, the first half of 2005 saw a marked increase in human rights violations in Diyarbakır and the surrounding provinces. DEHAP, a legal pro-Kurdish political party, also reports increases in prosecutions, arbitrary detention and other violations against its members, as well as against civil society organisations, following the Council decision. Turkey’s stated enthusiasm for human rights is further brought into question by its attitude towards human rights defenders, who seem still to be perceived as something against which the state must be protected rather than a constructive force for change. The Turkish administration has responded to increased formal protections against arbitrary detention and torture by instigating a new strategy of launching deluges of investigations and prosecutions against human rights defenders as a means of harassing and intimidating them. Free expression is being stifled by the pursuit of spurious prosecutions against journalists, politicians and academics who put forward opinions too unpalatable for the Turkish authorities. Even the state’s own human rights bodies are sidelined and relieved of any real influence. The Human Rights Advisory Board of the Prime Ministry (BİHDK), which was set up by the Turkish Government to oversee its own adherence to human rights standards, has been beset by controversy since its inception and is now out of operation. In March 2005, the Chairman of the Prime Minister's Human Rights Advisory Board (BIHDK), Yavuz Önen, felt himself compelled to resign from his post after he and his colleagues were severely criticised over a government-commissioned report calling for improvements in Turkey’s record on minority rights. The Chairman bitterly criticised the government's ‘insincere attitude’ towards human rights and its lack of consultation with Board. In February 2006, two members of the BIHDK, Professor Baskın Oran and Professor İbrahim Özden Kaboğlu, were charged under Articles 301 and 216 of the revised Penal Code on the basis that the report argued that ‘Turk’ is an identity of only one ethnic group and that Turkey also includes other ethnic groups such as ‘Kurds’ or ‘Arabs’; a comment that was considered to be sufficient ‘denigration’ of the Turkish state to warrant criminal proceedings. This case typifies the mistrust which is shown to the work of HRDs by the criminal justice system in Turkey which the state’s programme of human rights training seems to have done little to shift. The irony is that the Human Rights Advisory Board was set up, by the state itself, for viewpoints such as this to be aired and debated. Although the charges against these two eminent academics were eventually dropped, the fact that they were indicted in the first place shows that very little has changed, and that the antipathy shown to HRDs by prosecutors and the judiciary remains firmly entrenched. The fact that the charges in most free expression cases are often dropped once the case provokes international condemnation does not negate the chilling effect that they have on free speech. Prosecutions, no matter how spurious, taint the work of human rights defenders with the smear of illegality and criminality, undermining their work in the eyes of the public. Court appearances are time consuming, inhibiting human rights defenders, and those organisations that rely on them, from carrying out their work and slowing down the progress of society on every level. The New Penal Code After a period of pronounced controversy and wrangling, Turkey’s revised Penal Code was finally approved by Parliament in June 2005. The enactment of the controversial code was made a precondition of the opening of accession negotiations in the Council’s decision of 17 December 2004, in the context of the need to strengthen democratic reform – a factor which is rather troubling given aspects of the content of the code. There are several welcome provisions in the code, including a strengthened sanctions regime for torturers, but overall it represents something of a ‘mixed bag’ and is by no means the great leap forward for human rights that was hoped for. Its enactment was dominated by the debate which raged in the preceding two months over provisions which placed excessive restrictions on press freedom. The draft adopted in September 2004 was vociferously criticised by human rights groups, international press associations and journalists, delaying its entry into force which was originally projected for 1 April 2004. It was argued that the code contained provisions which could restrict reporting freedoms and result in arbitrary prosecutions of journalists and others in the media. Under Article 125, for example, criticism of a political figure can be interpreted as a personal insult and land the journalist concerned with a one year prison sentence. Turkey subsequently made some changes to these contentious elements of the Code, including deleting most of the provisions which detailed stronger sanctions when an offence was committed by the media. However, out of the 23 changes the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media recommended in May, only seven provisions of the code were subsequently amended in line with media freedom principles. The OSCE Representative responded that the amendments made by Turkey did ‘not sufficiently eliminate threats to freedom of expression and to a free press’. Prime Minister Erdoğan’s initiation of defamation lawsuits against two newspaper cartoonists does little to enhance the Turkish leadership’s image in the realm of press freedom. Other pertinent misgivings over the new Penal Code relate to its retention of anti-democratic articles which have been used repeatedly to arrest, detain and charge individuals legitimately exercising their right to freedom of expression. It is still a crime to insult the Turkish state and its institutions – the notorious Article 159 of the old code which has no place in the criminal law of a modern, European state but which appears virtually unaltered in the revised code. The deliberate ‘incitement of a section of the population to hatred and hostility’ on grounds of race, region or membership of a religious group also remains a part of the statute under Article 216. This provision has been repeatedly interpreted in a deeply arbitrary manner by the Turkish judicial system to punish peaceful, pro-Kurdish advocacy. Controversy further surrounded examples put forward in the Penal Code’s explanatory notes of offences which would be deemed against ‘fundamental national interests’, including advocating for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from northern Cyprus and attesting to the occurrence of the Armenian genocide. As the prosecution of Professor Oran and Professor Kaboğlu demonstrated, Article 301 is proving a major impediment to free expression in Turkey. Despite being amended, the provision is still badly drafted leaving the parameters of criminal liability under the offence unclear. An individual will be guilty if the judge perceives that they have ‘denigrated’ the state but not guilty if they have merely ‘criticised’ it, as this has been specifically exempted. The ambiguity of the terms leaves too much scope for further unjustified prosecutions. If this is the best that can be achieved in redrafting this Article, it appears that the Turkish Government has no other option but to repeal the Article altogether. In the sphere of women’s rights the new code contains some more positive developments, particularly given the deeply chauvinistic nature of the 2003 draft which criminalised adultery and did not adequately punish honour killings. Characterisations of offences committed against women based in patriarchal notions of chastity, ‘honour’ and shame are replaced with definitions based on international human rights norms and recognising women’s bodily integrity and sexual rights. Sexual crimes are denoted as crimes against the individual rather than crimes against society, marital rape is criminalised and rape is no longer legitimised where the perpetrator marries the victim. These changes came about following a constructive and sustained campaign by women’s rights groups in Turkey to incorporate a gender perspective into criminal law, which is much to the credit of the burgeoning Turkish women’s movement. There are, though, still sticking points for women in the new code. Killing a woman in the name of ‘honour’, where she is seen to have transgressed her customary, socially-defined role, continues to occur in Kurdish regions. In June 2006, the Diyarbakır Bar Association’s Women’s Rights Centre stated that honour killings had claimed the lives of 50 women in the past six years in the southeast region of Turkey. Under Turkish law, an honour killing was a partial justification for the crime and led to a reduced sentence. This is no longer the case, but contrary to the lobbying efforts of women’s groups the new code refers to ‘custom killings’ rather than honour killings. It is not sufficiently clear that this term covers all murders committed according to ‘honour’ codes. In addition, although ‘genital examinations’ can now only be carried out if necessary for public health or, at the behest of a court, if required for the investigation of a crime, there is no requirement that the woman’s consent must first be attained. These examinations or ‘virginity testing’ have been used in Turkey, where pre-marital virginity is customarily seen as critical to a woman’s ‘honour’, as a highly invasive and discriminatory means of controlling female sexual relations. The new Anti-Terror law Following the example of a number of western European states, Turkey has in 2006 enacted a new Anti-Terror law to amend the 1991 Law on the Fight against Terrorism (Act 3713). The adverse effect this piece of legislation will have on Turkey’s reform process and its stated goal of democratisation cannot be overstated. It targets fundamental rights and freedoms that had previously been bolstered by the amendments and sets the democratisation process back several years. The amendments are in many ways fundamentally flawed and will undo a lot of the good work that the reform process has already achieved in areas such as freedom of expression and the freedom of the press. In terms of the rule of law, the imprecise drafting of the legislation and the use of ambiguous terms means that it will be difficult for individuals to regulate their behaviour so as to avoid criminal liability. The perhaps intentional result will be that individuals will be prosecuted for ‘terrorist’ acts without having any real links to the ‘terrorist’ organisation itself. The Law extends the number of terrorist offences, disproportionately punishing behaviour that, to the layperson, would not constitute ‘terrorism’. Under Article 6, the carrying of an emblem, signs or placards of a ‘terrorist’ organisation and the shouting of slogans will be deemed to be spreading terrorist propaganda and can be punished by a prison sentence of up to three years. Moreover, attempting to conceal your own identity during a demonstration of wearing the uniform of an outlawed organisation are punishable under the propaganda charge. A wide range of criminal acts such as drug and human-trafficking to hijacking of transport vehicles and forgery will become terrorist offences if they are committed with the aim of supporting terrorism. The amendments also attack press freedom as those who publish the statements of terrorist organisations can be subject to prison terms and provides for heavy fines for owners and editors of media outlets that commit offences and grants the power to judges and prosecutors to suspend publications which are considered to be glorifying terrorist acts for up to 30 days. The escalation of violence witnessed in the Kurdish regions of Turkey over recent months needs urgent resolution but will not be assuaged by the enactment of draconian pieces of legislation that target the supporters rather than the perpetrators of violence. Turkey must be made to understand that extending the list of terrorist offences will only serve to criminalise innocent people, feeding the antipathy that is felt in the region towards the current Turkish administration. This resentment is a fertile breeding ground for extremists and makes a democratic solution to the Kurdish question more remote. In a positive step towards a more peaceful era, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party declared a unilateral ceasefire on 1 October. The EUTCC is hopeful that there is now a renewed potential for the end of armed conflict. When both sides denounce violence as an answer to the Kurdish issue, this will provide the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and a just solution. The EU, Human Rights and the Future of the Accession Process In underlining the continued impediments to the realisation of European standards on human rights in Turkey, it is not the EUTCC’s intention to dismiss what genuine progress has been made or to cast doubt on the real benefits of the EU accession process as a harbinger of change. The EUTCC is concerned, though, that the EU’s approach to human rights has not been sufficiently robust; Turkey has enacted human rights reforms begrudgingly and haltingly, interspersed with frequent steps backwards, and its commitment to change appears fragile and at times half-hearted. The Commission reports have drawn excessively positive inferences from Turkey’s efforts to improve human rights while making overly brief references to a number of serious human rights issues, failing to comprehensively address the human rights situation in the Kurdish regions. Events since 17 December 2004, whereby Turkey has relapsed even on what tentative progress it had made in some key reform areas, add considerable weight to disquiet over Turkey’s commitment to achieving EU standards in human rights. It is consequently imperative that the motivational pull of EU membership is re-harnessed by the Union, and that those human rights requirements in the accession process are vigorously enforced as negotiations move forwards. Turkey must not be left to drift back into old habits. As touched upon above, the EU has made clear that Turkey’s obligations in human and minority rights reform do not end now it has been accepted as a formal negotiating partner. It expects an ongoing and robust show by Turkey that reform achievements are being strengthened and the implementation of already enacted reforms is being ensured. The 2005 Commission report states that: ‘Significant further efforts are required as regards fundamental freedoms and human rights, particularly freedom of expression, women’s rights, religious freedoms, trade union rights’ ‘It is primarily by demonstrating determined implementation of continued reform that Turkey would be able to ensure a successful conclusion of the whole accession process.’ The stipulation that Turkey’s progress during accession negotiations and the ultimate decision on membership will be made with reference to its fulfilment of the Copenhagen Criteria is also specified in the Framework. Negotiations are to be suspended if there is a serious breach of human rights. EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn has underlined his insistence on ‘the utmost importance’ attached to the ‘continuation of political reforms with the same pace and with the same intensity as in previous months.’ However, he has recently acknowledged that political tension has increased between the EU and Turkey, mainly regarding the issue of opening Cyprus’s ports to traffic, and that it will take deft diplomacy to avoid a ‘train crash’ at the end of the year. In a speech in October 2006 in Ankara, Commissioner Rehn drew particular attention to issues of freedom of expression, fundamental freedoms such as the freedom of religion, the rights of women especially in the area of so-called ‘honour’ killings, and called for a strategy for the south-east region ‘that addresses its political and socio-economic problems together with the cultural rights of the Kurdish population.’ Human rights may be set to play a more focal role in dialogue on Turkey’s adoption of the acquis itself. The Commission has stated that human rights developments ‘are in many ways closely linked to developments regarding [Turkey’s] ability to implement the acquis, in particular in the domain of justice and home affairs’, and the preliminary indicative list of chapter headings for negotiations includes ‘Judiciary and fundamental rights’, which was not a title in the Bulgarian or Romanian accession talks. It should be remembered in this context that promises to enact human rights reforms and address the Kurdish question made by Turkey prior to the establishment of the 1995 Turkey-EU Customs Union proved empty, though of course, the Copenhagen Criteria are much more authoritative than the relatively insubstantial and non-binding political pre-requisites attached to the Customs Union. At the EUTCC conference held in November 2004 in Brussels, the EU’s failure to address the situation of the Kurds in any kind of substantive or coherent manner and the highly negative potential implications of this scenario for the Kurds, other citizens of Turkey and the EU itself were outlined. Turkey’s movement towards EU membership was gathering pace despite the absence of any concerted efforts to achieve a Turkish-Kurdish settlement, and initial Kurdish eagerness over the probability of the accession process resulting in long-term, sustainable peace in the Kurdish regions was consequently dissipating. Here the EUTCC reiterates these concerns, which have only deepened in the intervening period. The EU continues to appear impervious to calls for a more open and meaningful engagement with the plight of the Kurds, seemingly unwilling to use its influential position in relation to Turkey, at least publicly, to fulfil its obligation to ensure that the Kurdish question is tackled. The European Commission’s regular reports on Turkey’s progress have not ignored the Kurdish issue as such. Instead they have adopted a piecemeal approach that appears to advocate resolution through responding to the Kurdish dimension of an assortment of discrete human rights abuses which were not specifically differentiated from Turkey’s overall record on compliance with the Copenhagen Criteria. The section on minority rights contained in the reports makes no attempt to analyse the situation of the Kurds as a group or people within Turkey, and very little has been made of the absence of the Kurds from the definition of a minority contained in the Turkish Constitution - an issue of substantial importance for the political and legal status of the Kurds. Whether this was through deference to those who oppose defining the Kurds as a minority is unclear, but the part of the reports which refer to the situation in the south-east have failed to analyse the complex and deep-rooted problems there.
The EUTCC does not consider the non-committal stance of the Commission towards the Kurdish issue to be an appropriate departure point for the commencement of accession negotiations. The foundations of the Kurdish question are rooted in the virulent nationalism which permeates the Turkish state and society and which insists upon cultural homogeneity in the country – all citizens of Turkey are defined as ‘Turks’ and alternative ethnicities are not tolerated. The Kurds, as by far the largest non-Turkish ethnic group in Turkey, have as a result been subject to brutal oppression and attempts to crush their identity for decades. Turkey’s treatment of the Kurds is, then, fundamentally anchored in hostility to Kurdish identity per se. Despite some improvements in their situation since 1999, Kurds who outwardly manifest their ‘Kurdishness’ have long been subject to harassment and coercion through spurious judicial decisions, arbitrary detention and torture. Their rights to free expression and association have been violated where they have sought to assert their identity, and they have suffered the effects of protracted armed conflict and subsequent forced displacement aimed at disbanding Kurdish regional dominance in the south-east. Turkey’s antipathy towards countenancing the presence of group identities distinct from the official Turkish nationalist identity has meant that the existence of the Kurds has never been granted any constitutional recognition. The suffering of the Kurds at the hands of the Turkish state is, then, intrinsically linked to their status as Kurds. As such, it is difficult to conceive that the compound array of interlinked injustices taking place in the Kurdish regions can be resolved by occasional reference to individual human rights issues, as apparently propounded in the European Commission report. The Commission’s approach seems to be based on an implicit assumption that ingrained mentalities within the Turkish establishment which inform continued attempts to quash expressions of Kurdish identity will simply dissipate with the advancement of the pro-EU reform process. It is submitted that such an eventuality cannot be presumed. Such an approach fails to appreciate that human rights violations against the Kurds are not merely the mark of an occasional tendency to discriminate against a non-dominant minority, and nor are Kurds targeted in Turkey purely as a result of legislative gaps in the pro-EU reform process or inadequate controls on public authority behaviour. Turkey’s treatment of the Kurds is the outward manifestation of a long-standing and deeply embedded hostility towards the Kurds as a people. The Kurds are targeted because they are Kurds, and human rights violations which bear no overt relation to ‘Kurdish’ rights as such will frequently have a Kurdish element. Torture, for example, remains most prevalent in the Kurdish-dominated south-east, but there is not even acknowledgement in the Commission report that Kurds may be particularly vulnerable to torture. The EUTCC’s concerns over the Commission’s approach to the Kurdish issue and its potential for resulting in a democratic resolution are further exacerbated by the fact that Turkey has not demonstrated any real inclination to tackle deep-seated hostility to the notion of a distinct Kurdish identity, and to a significant extent the veiled forces of the highly traditionalist and reactionary deep state continue to hold sway over Turkish governance. Indeed, developments in the field of cultural and linguistic rights over recent months intimate that Turkey’s string of seemingly impressive reforms enacted prior to 17 December 2004 was not indicative of a softening of Turkish antipathy towards expressions of Kurdish ethnicity; the reforms have proved little more than paper concessions presumably designed to allay EU criticism. Kurdish language schools proved expensive, unworkable and subject to bureaucratic obstruction, compelling them all to close on 2 August 2005, while Kurdish broadcasts are of poor quality and fail to attract meaningful audience numbers. A court ruling in late July found that a provision in the statute of teaching union Eğitim-Sen voicing the desire of many Kurds for mother-tongue education was contrary to the Turkish Constitution and therefore illegal. It is put forward that entrenched Turkish mindsets opposing public recognition of the Kurdish culture and language will not be broken down merely by the enactment of rights-related legislative reforms; Turkey has shown it is inclined to simply backslide into old habits as soon as the immediate necessity of showing conformity with EU standards is lifted. The trend towards a falling off in reforms addressing the situation of the Kurds is also discernible in other key areas. On the subject of internal displacement the 2006 European Parliament resolution notes that the right to return is hampered by the village guard system, which the Turkish government has refused to disband or disarm. Statements to this effect ignore that internal displacement was a deliberate policy of the Turkish state aimed at breaking down Kurdish cultural networks and dissipating Kurdish regional dominance in the south-east. Again, displacement is a complex problem intimately tied in with the broader aspects of the Kurdish question, and EU pressure for change which fails to consider the contextual aspects of the problem and the need to combat attitudes which favour the effects of displacement is only likely to result in more sham measures by Turkey aimed at appeasing the EU. These examples of continued Turkish reluctance to address the situation of the Kurds and recognise their rights lend considerable weight to the EUTCC’s supposition that the Commission’s sidelining of the Kurdish question from its assessment of democratisation in Turkey is unlikely to result in the lasting peace and security in the region, which was the hoped-for result of EU accession. Impediments to realising Kurdish cultural and linguistic rights and to tackling displacement are unlikely to be resolved merely through the existing political reform impetus of the accession process. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that although there have been some improvements in the status of the Kurds in recent years, it is much less clear that Turkey is moving towards European conceptions of democratic pluralism and minority rights. Shortly before the decision to open accession negotiations, the Turkish Justice Minister was reported as saying that Turkey and the EU speak ‘different languages’ on minorities and warned against engaging in a debate on minority rights that would ‘call into question the unity of Turkey’. The idea that the expression of alternative identities is a threat to the unitary, secular state remains enormously powerful in Turkey. Acceptance of ethnic diversity within Turkey, rather than defining Turkey as a collective nation of only ethnically Turkish citizens and dismissing alternative identities as separatist, is a prerequisite for the emergence of Turkey as a modern, stable democracy. It should also be noted that the Commission’s unwillingness to address the situation of the Kurds as a cohesive issue provides no incentive for Turkey to do so. Indeed, in denying the integral nature of the situation in the Kurdish regions and treating the matter as if it will resolve itself as reform progresses, the EU edges out the prospect of encouraging Turkey to acknowledge that there exists a Kurdish ‘issue’ to be addressed at all. Instead, it implicitly upholds the Turkish view that there is no problem in the Kurdish regions requiring resolution except a ‘terrorism’ problem which occupies only the military domain. Turkey has long used this pretext to evade dealing with the substantive, rights-related elements of the Kurdish question. Those advocating for much needed efforts to achieve enduring peace and justice in the Kurdish regions, including the Council of Europe, are effectively sidelined. Importantly, this also means that the Kurds themselves are precluded from effectively contributing to the search for a negotiated solution, and certainly there has been a marked failure by the Commission to consult adequately with Kurdish groups and representatives and to take into account Kurdish views. The acceptance of Turkey as the only real party to EU negotiations exacerbates the risk that the accession process will fail to address the Kurdish issue in a locally coherent way or respond to Kurdish concerns on the ground. In short, resolving the substantial problems endured by the Kurds – surely a fundamental pre-requisite to negotiating EU accession – demands much more than the EU has yet appeared prepared to invest. Crucially, the Kurdish question is in essence a political one, and demands a political answer. It will not be resolved if it is ignored or subsumed by human rights concerns, which form only one component of the problem. It must be addressed fully, openly, and at its ideological roots, and it is of profound importance that the EU acknowledges and responds to the need for constructive and sustained dialogue to achieve this end. Conflict in the Kurdish regions The European Commission has also apparently disengaged itself from the resurgence of the armed conflict in the Kurdish regions. Since the end of the PKK ceasefire in June 2004, the security threat in the area has substantially stepped up. In recent months, Turkish troops have begun to mobilise on the border with Iraq in preparation for an offensive against PKK installations in Iraqi Kurdistan. To a greater extent, parts of the south-east are reverting towards the scenes of conflict witnessed prior to 1999 as violence spirals and the death toll continues to rise. The European Parliament too has shown greater firmness. Joost Lagendijk, co-chairman of the Turkey-European Union Joint Parliamentary Committee, has called on Turkey to make progress regarding the Kurdish issue and freedom of speech. The Parliament’s resolution in response to Turkey’s progress to accession was critical of the pace of reforms and the continuing abuses of human rights in the region. The European Parliament also calls on the government of Turkey to demonstrate its commitment to a resolution of the Kurdish question by ‘meeting and entering into talks with the legal and pro-Kurdish political party, the Democratic Society Party, which has called for a cease-fire and for political dialogue’
In addition to the evident human cost of the return to armed conflict, it is difficult to conceive that Turkey can fully satisfy the Copenhagen Criteria demanding respect for human and minority rights while fighting is ongoing. Turkey’s disproportionate reaction to the 1984 – 1999 armed conflict resulted in mass forced displacement from the Kurdish villages, a relaxation of judicial supervision of state behaviour under the government declared State of Emergency which opened the door to chronic abuses, and the comprehensive silencing of the pro-Kurdish press, publishers, associations and cultural initiatives. There are real fears that the renewal of the conflict will, if not addressed, see a regression into old habits. Already, the military presence in the area is being stepped up again, and state security operations in July 2004 in which hundreds of residents of the village of Ilıcak in Şırnak province were forcibly removed from their homes for six weeks during a state security operation was chillingly reminiscent of mass forced displacement in the 1980s and 1990s. Turkey’s tentative, EU-inspired steps towards granting the Kurds hard-won cultural and civil rights would be significantly threatened by a return to fully-fledged state counter-terror activity. Addressing the return to armed conflict in the Kurdish regions is also inextricably linked with resolving the Kurdish question itself. Violence between Kurdish militants and the Turkish state fuels Turkish conceptions of the situation in the Kurdish regions as a terrorist problem which requires a purely military response. It is Turkey’s inability or refusal to distinguish the political and rights-related elements of the Kurdish issue from the conflict which lay behind the Commission’s 1998 objection to Turkey’s ‘largely military response’ to the problem in the Kurdish regions. The parameters of the conflict have been determined almost exclusively by reference to security considerations, and pro-Kurdish politicians with wholly peaceful agendas are not recognised by the state as legitimate negotiating partners – they are instead dismissed as terrorists or separatists. This approach by Turkey provides her with an ostensible justification to refuse to engage in dialogue with Kurdish representatives, and leads her to characterise peaceful, pro-Kurdish politicians and those legitimately calling for improved cultural and linguistic rights for the Kurds as ‘terrorists’. The revision of Turkey’s security-centred perspective on the Kurdish issue is vital to achieving normalisation and long-term stability in the region. Prospects for Political Dialogue The implications of the EU’s failure to prescribe or facilitate an acceptable solution to the Kurdish issue as a primary objective of accession negotiations are, then, potentially serious. Apparent EU reluctance to explicitly confront the problems in the Kurdish regions as a cohesive issue founded in Turkish antipathy towards Kurdish identity as such is doing very little to advance democratisation there, and fails to account for the need to mount a robust challenge to entrenched notions of Turkish ethnic nationalism. Meanwhile, the EU appears to be squandering a unique opportunity to assist the Kurds and Turks to arrive at a negotiated solution to a conflict which has been the cause of much pain and destruction, as well as risking the further weakening of democracy in the Kurdish regions and endangering stability in the EU. If the EU were to continue in this vein, then for the Kurds, EU accession could prove yet another profound disappointment in a history of European failure to engage with their plight. "We all know that amending laws alone isn't enough to ensure rights and freedoms; a change of mentality is needed. Laws are implemented by human beings and a change of mentality doesn't come about overnight; it takes time," said Erdogan. The Commission’s approach to human rights has so far underplayed the significance of ongoing violations, and the EUTCC contends in particular that the downgrading of the standards set by the EU for the formal opening of negotiations should not be repeated at future stages of membership talks. The EU’s extensive stipulations that reform must be further strengthened and implemented on the ground, including the human rights ‘break clause’, are to be welcomed – it is of great importance that the EU fulfils its obligations to compel Turkish compliance with the criteria its lays down. The Commission line on the Kurdish question has also prompted disquiet. All endeavours must be made to ensure that the occasion presented by the accession process to secure a democratic future for the Kurds is fully utilised. So far, Kurdish aspirations of finally seeing their status and rights protected through an EU-driven reform process in Turkey do not look set to be realised, and the Commission appears to have reneged on its earlier pledge to see Turkey reach a political solution to the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. The Kurdish question is not even explicitly recognised, and the annual regular reports make only occasional, incidental references to the situation of the Kurds. The EUTCC is of the view that the problems faced by the Kurds are complex and deeply rooted in Turkish ethnic nationalism, and that addressing the Kurdish question in an open and comprehensive manner is critical to Turkish progress towards reform and EU membership. In particular, the EU has a momentous chance to promote democratic dialogue between the parties and to make possible the achievement of a viable, politically negotiated solution. If this course is not followed and instead the EU continues in its current vein, it will throw away a unique possibility for attaining peace and potentially bring an unresolved armed conflict into the EU. Accession still has the potential to effect transformation in Turkey. Whether or not this proves the case will, to a significant extent, depend upon the EU. The vigour of the Commission’s future approach in prescribing and reviewing political reforms and the commitment to principle by leaders in the Council will be crucial to reasserting the credibility of the accession process and ensuring its resonance among the Kurds and other victims of oppression and violence in Turkey. The EUTCC will accordingly keep up its scrutiny of Turkey’s democratisation efforts in the context of her obligations under the acquis, drawing attention both to successes and to setbacks in the reform agenda and ensuring that these reach the ears of EU decision makers. It will also monitor the EU’s behaviour during accession negotiations and lobby to ensure that talks are indeed carried out within the structure set out in the Council decision and the Negotiating Framework. Placing both Turkish and EU decision-making under the spotlight will go towards ensuring that obligations and undertakings from both sides are not evaded. |