International Initiative
Freedom for Ocalan Peace in Kurdistan
P.O. Box 100511, D-50445 Koeln
E-Mail: info@freedom-for-ocalan.com
Url: www.freedom-for-ocalan.com
Cologne, 14 March 2003
INTERNATIONAL INITIATIVE BRIEFINGS:
One step forward, two steps back - European
law and the Kurdish question
After a trial of three years the European Court of Human Rights
has announced its decision in the Ocalan case. The court held that
Mr. Ocalan did not have a fair trial by an independent and impartial
tribunal, that his right to legal assistance had been violated and
that the imposition of the death penalty following an unfair trial
amounted to inhumane treatment violating the Convention.. In a first
statement Mr. Ocalan's lawyers called the decision positive but
insufficient since the court had dismissed a central point of the
appeal concerning the illegal circumstances of Mr. Ocalan' abduction.
This, however, was extraordinarily important for the applicant.
For it had been only a multi-national alliance of intelligence services
that had made Mr. Ocalan's abduction to Turkey possible which in
turn had led to the trial staged on the Turkish prison island of
Imrali. Renowned experts of international law still argue about
the circumstances and the breaches of international law in this
context. According to the applicant the court has not sufficiently
taken into consideration the social and political context at the
bottom of Mr. Ocalan's trial.
Although only individuals may file appeals with the European Court
it is at least controversial with the experts wether in such a case
the political background underlying the case should be completely
neglected. Mr. Ocalan is doubtless an individual. At the same time,
however, he is the outcome of a broad political conflict for which
he was held personally responsible in the Imrali trial.
Mr. Ocalan's lawyers have already signalised that they will appeal
the court's decision. The same applies for Turkey since now that
the court has called the Kurdish leader's trial unfair it becomes
clear that he is a political prisoner who became a prisoner owing
to an unresolved political conflict. Moreover, it becomes clear
that the law cannot take the place of politics - which is not meant
as an argument against the process of binding politics to international
law. The fact that the dispute about international legal bodies
like the court in the Hague still continues indicates clearly that
this process is not yet completed. This is why the European Court
could be expected to somehow account for the political dimension
of the case in his judgement. At first glance its decision seems
Solomonian. But it remains unsatisfactory in this respect.
Meanwhile, the Kurdish question is still unresolved. When the PKK
ended the war unilaterally and withdraw its forces from Turkish
soil a time of new departures and hopes seemed to have come . Of
this little is left. On the contrary, a new confrontation in the
Kurdish question seems rather probable. The human rights situation
in Turkey remains devastating. Torture and arbitrariness by the
authorities are still commonplace. Yesterday the People's Democracy
Party (HADEP) was banned. At the same time an application was made
to also ban DEHAP. This shows that Turkey is still far from being
compatible with the EU.
Additionally, these measures corroborate the assumption that Turkey
believes it can deal with the Kurdish question in a classical blunt
manner under the cover of an American intervention in Iraq. The
tightening of Mr. Ocalan's solitary confinement is only a focal
point where this policy can be recognised as systematic attrition.
One cannot but follow from this that Turkey is not interested in
a peaceful solution of the Kurdish question. This becomes also clear
in view of the massively increasing repression against members and
sympathisers of the pro-Kurdish DEHAP as well as from the concentrated
military operations against the Kurdish self-defence forces during
the past months.
Meanwhile, Abdullah Ocalan has warned of an escalation of the conflict
in case Turkey should choose to occupy South-Kurdistan (North-Iraq).
When after four months his lawyers were allowed to see him for the
first time he was worried that an ethnic conflict were possible
if chauvinism and nationalism came to the fore. This was meant likewise
for Turkey and the Kurdish leaders Barzani and Talabani. A democratic
solution of the Kurdish question was still possible and it was Turkey's
turn to do a step in this direction. The Erdogan administration
would have to pave the way for a peaceful solution, i.e. it would
have to enter a dialogue with the Kurds. A democratic solution within
the Turkish borders was still the objective. The armed guerrilla
forces, however, could only be then disbanded if Turkey was completely
democratic and a legal basis was created that would allow for their
return into civil life.
This stance is also brought to bear in recent statements by the
Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress (KADEK). Although a defence
war had been declared one would still hope for a change in the present
Turkish policy towards the Kurds, a policy which was moving towards
war against the Kurds.
If there was a real change of this position the present state of
defence might also be ended again. A new war could not resolve the
Kurdish question and was not in the Turkish interests.
Again the Kurds are send on the game for a new order in the Middle
East, a game they have lost several times before, being tossed about
by foreign powers.
It would be fatal to repeat this. It is no surprise, therefore,
that the decision of the European Court in Strasbourg is at risk
of becoming part of efforts in such a direction. Such concerns are
presently being prompted by Turkish and international reactions
on the judgement.
A new trial for Mr. Ocalan does not seem quite unrealistic. It
will only bear fruit, however, if it makes allowances for the political
and social conflict at the bottom of it, the Turkish-Kurdish conflict
to which both parties have contributed. Only if there is a will
for a solution can the law play a positive part. This also holds
for the European Court. Only if Europe gives up its indifference
towards the Kurdish question in order to contribute constructively
to a solution, only then will European law be enabled to take its
own constructive and dynamic part. The Court's decision is a first
positive step. It largely ignores, however, the political setting
of the Ocalan case, and thus does not actively further a solution.
Such a solution, indeed, will be rather impossible without the
KADEK-president. Even if - at present - demands for his release
may seem unrealistic: they are based on political reason and, therefore,
must be upheld.
Stop the solitary confinement - Freedom for Abdullah Ocalan
- Peace in Kurdistan and Turkey
(Sources: press reports by AFP, AP and MHA on March 12 and 13,
2003;Medya-TV, press release by Ocalan's lawyers on March 13, 2003)
|