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)