Moreover, Mr. Zebari called on the three countries that had opposed America’s war on Iraq to send troops to help stabilise his country. “I think that we need the participation of European countries that are in favour of a stable Middle East in the internationalisation of the forces” of the Americano-British coalition in Iraq, he added, stressing that if would be a good thing “if the French, Russians and Germans, for example, took part”.  He pointed out that the Iraqis would not take seriously the participation of countries lacking in advanced military technology.

On 5 September Russia joined France and Germany in stressing the inadequacies of the proposed new American resolution on Iraq and repeating its call for giving UNO a central role in the document. Washington is urging Turkey and its NATO allies to send troops to Iraq, and Ankara has indicated that it does not exclude such a possibility and takes of the deployment of some 10,000 soldiers. The supporters of a Turkish presence in Iraq consider that Ankara’s army would thus be able to have its say in post-Saddam Iraq, where the Turkish leaders fear the emergence of a Kurdish entity.

Mr. Zebari, a member of the cabinet formed with Washington’s blessings, stated that his government was opposed to a Turkish military presence. “By deploying (troops) the Turks would have the means of pursuing their own political objectives, which could lead to the destabilisation of Iraq” he stated. “The objective of the process of internationalisation is to stabilise the situation on the spot, but if it leads to destabilisation this creates a problem,” added the Iraqi leader. Mr. Zebari, who indicated that Jordan and other neighbours of Iraq had been approached on the possibility of a military presence in Iraq, conceded that, in the last resort, it was up to the coalition to “decide”.

Turkish deployment had been proposed for the province of Al-Anbar, a huge non-Kurdish Sunni area, stretching from West of Baghdad to the Syrian and Jordanian borders. “The corridor is a problem” stressed Mr. Zebari, referring to the fact that the Turkish troops would have to cross the Kurdish zone to reach Al-Anbar. “They would have to cross the Kurdish North and set up bases there to protect their supply routes and their patrols. This could be a form of presence, which is very problematic”. He considered that a solution could be a Turkish deployment from the West, through Jordan, or from the South, through Kuwait.

Mr. Zebari also gave assurances that Ankara should not worry about his appointment to the Foreign Ministry and denied that this strengthened the separatist aspirations of the Kurds. “On the contrary, this strengthens national unity and gives the Kurds the feeling that they are part of the country” he said, insisting that he represented all Iraqis.

On 1 September, Turkey called on the United States to act against the Kurdish fighters of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) who had sought refuge in Iraq, before any negotiations on Ankara’s participation in the peacekeeping force in the neighbouring country.
 

• 16 IRANIAN KURDISH OPPONENTS, UNDER PROTECTION OF THE HIGH COMMISSION FOR REFUGEES,  HANDED TO TEHERAN BY TURKISH AUTHORITIES.  On 8 September an Iranian opposition party accused Turkey of handing 16 Iranian Kurdish opposition activists over to the Teheran authorities, thus putting their lives at risk. “The Turks handed over to the Iranian [government) 16 Iranians who had been active in the past in the Iranian Revolutionary Union of Kurdistan (URK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDPI) and were living in Van, on the basis of an agreement between the secret services of both countries” declared, at Irbil, Iraqi Kurdistan, o the URK spokesman Hussein Yazdanpana.  “This puts their lives in danger” he declared, stating that the two dissidents, handed over by Turkey to the Iranian Islamic Republic had been executed in January and November 2002.

Mr. Yazdanpana made his statement the day after the publication, in the Kurdish city of Irbil, of a communiqué by his organisation accusing the Turkish authorities of having transferred a number of Iranian Kurds from a refugee camp at Van towards the frontier in preparation for their expulsion to the Islamic Republic. According to the communiqué, these Kurds were registered with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (HCR) and were living in Van, which they were planning to leave for a third country. Mr. Yazdanpana accused the HCR of not having prevented this expulsion and urged Human Rights Defence organisations to intervene to protect the 1,500 Iranian Kurds still in the camp.
 

• TURKISH PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT TO GERMANY. On 2 September, at the end of Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s first visit to Berlin, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder firmly supported Turkey’s controversial application for membership of the European Union, congratulating Ankara for the “progress” of its reforms. This name “is associated with progress for which I express my greatest respect” said the Chancellor at the end of his first meeting in Berlin with Mr. Erdogan since he became Prime Minister. “I am convinced that the process begun will greatly help Turkey to achieve its hope, namely to become, one day, a full member of the European Union” Mr. Schroeder added. “Their (the Turks’) expectations cannot and must not be disappointed” Mr. Schroeder assured his guest.
The Fifteen, very divided on Turkey’s membership of the EU, had announced at their Copenhagen summit in December 2002, that they would decide at the end of 2004 whether it was opportune to start negotiations with Ankara on the basis of the democratic advance in that country. Turkey’s integration into Europe nevertheless divides the EU, in particular because of the Human Rights situation in that country, which is regularly the subject of many criticisms. A sign of this distrust — the refusal of the German Courts to expel the Turk Metin Kaplan, leader of an Islamist organisation banned in Germany, Hilafet Devleti, for fear that the legal proceedings in Turkey would not be conform to those of a State of Law. The two men, moreover, were sharply criticised by Bavarian German Conservative Party, the CSU, that wants to campaign against Turkey’s joining the EU during the 2004 European Election. “That ’s a gutter campaign” considered the Chancellor. But the Turkish Prime Minister himself sparked off the polemic by affirming, in reply to a question put by the German Ambassador to Ankara, that a man had the right to have up to four wives if they were ill or handicapped.

On bi-lateral issues, the Turkish Prime Minister re-iterated his interest in buying German Leopard-2 tanks. Berlin had adopted arms regulations that required of countries acquiring weapons that they respect the criteria of human rights. “We cannot accept that a country that is going to become a member of the EU and is preparing to negotiate for this have such restrictions imposed on its arms exports” declared Mr. Erdogan to the German economic paper Handelsbatt.
 

• “THE FAILURE” PARTIAL AMNESTY AND END OF PKK’S UNILATERAL CEASE-FIRE. On 4 September, Osman Ocalan, member of the Kurdistan Worker’s Party’s Command Council, renamed the Congress for Democracy and Freedom for Kurdistan (KADEK) threatened to recommence guerrilla operations after a truce of over 4 years, if Turkey did not adopt a “Road Map” for resolving the Kurdish problem. “This time the war will not be traditional and it is Turkey that will have to assume responsibility for the eventual civilian casualties” Osman Ocalan stated to the Arabic language daily Al Hayat.  “Our party is fully prepared to carry out major attacks in different towns and governorates, and will not be satisfied with fighting in the mountains and villages as it did in the early 1990s” he added, the day after announcing the end of the unilateral cease fire decided by the PKK in 1999.

Mr. Ocalan who was interviewed in his stronghold in the Qandîl Mountains of Iraqi Kurdistan, on the Iraqi/Iranian borders, considered that Turkey’s only choice for avoiding war was to draw up a “Road Map” for peacefully resolving the Kurdish problem. This peace plan would stipulate a bi-lateral cease fire, the transfer of his brother, Abdullah Ocalan  (serving a life sentence and jailed on Imrali island “where the dampness is harming his health”, the dissolution of the “village protection forces” set up by the Turkish government. Mr. Ocalan moreover admitted that he had twice had unofficial contacts with American leaders who he did not identify, with the aim of “getting to know them”.

He stated that the Americans had not demanded that his party give up their weapons. “The Americans authorise everyone to work (i.e. politically) in Iraq so long as they keep away from violence”.

While announcing the end of this unilateral cease-fire on 1 September, the PKK has not, for all that, called on its members to resume guerrilla operations, which had caused over 36, 000 deaths since 1984.

Furthermore, since 29 June, and the coming into application of the new partial amnesty law (the eighth of its kind since the conflict began in 1984) aimed at repent ants from clandestine armed organisations, (including those of the PKK) only eight Kurdish activists have come from Iraq to the Turkish border posts — a clear indication of the failure of this operation.

Three “rehabilitation centres” set up last August remain desolately empty. The amnesty law, called the “law of repentance” proposes, in the best of cases, a pardon but more often a simple reduction in their sentences — and then only if the furnish the authorities with information on their activities. According to the latest official figures, a total of 2,138 people — principally members of the PKK, but also of other leftist-armed groups — have asked to benefit from the amnesty law. But 1,927 of these are already in jail, and merely hope to get a reduction in their sentences. According to the authorities, a total of 211 PKK activists have surrendered — eight from the Iraqi guerrillas who surrendered at the border post.

Leader of the organisation or excluded from the amnesty, and the rank and file “repent ants” risk being considered “collaborators” since they have to give information to the authorities. In the view of the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (DEHAP), the principal pro-Kurdish organisation in the country, the law is a “total fiasco”.  “Instead of proclaiming laws reducing sentences, the State should rather work on a general amnesty covering all the PKK members” including Abdullah Ocalan who has been serving a life sentence since 1999, in the opinion of Tuncer Bakirhan, DEHAP’s President. In the view of this leader of the party, threatened with a banning order by the Turkish Courts on the grounds of presumed links with the PKK “Not a single rebel has come down from the mountains so far”.

In the opinion of the Husnu Ondul, President of the Turkish Human Rights Association (IHD), only an amnesty that covers the PKK cadres is likely to end armed struggle.
 

• PROCEEDINGS AGAINST  PRO-KURDISH DEHAP PARTY COULD GIVE DYP PARTY 66 MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, ANNULLING 2 MILLION KURDISH VOTES.  The Court of Appeals will examine, on 11 September, the case of the People’s Democratic Party (DEHAP — pro-Kurdish) four leaders of which are being sued by the Turkish authorities for “falsified documents”. Concretely, the Turkish courts are accusing DEHAP of either not having tenancy leases for the party’s offices or, in some cases, of “the absence” of certificates of no previous conviction for “at least seven people” required for the recognition “the party’s establishment” or then again “absence of identity cards”. The Court of Appeals, which is usually takes between six and 12 months for enquire into cases before it “with arrests” and up to 2 years in cases “without arrests” has surprised everyone at the speed with which it has placed this case on its agenda  — only 4 months after the appeal. If the Court of Appeals confirms the Ankara criminal court’s ruling against DEHAP, the High Election Commission (YSK) should then rule on the consequences this could have on the results of the 3 November 2002 elections, which brought the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the People’s Republican Party (CHP) into the Turkish Assembly. All sorts of the speculations are being put about by the Turkish Press and certain journalists, like Oktay Eksi of the daily Hurriyet, do not hesitate to campaign for the outright annulment of the votes won by DEHAP, which in consequence would bring Mehmet Agar’s Right Path Party (DYP) into the Turkish Parliament.

Should the 1,950,000 votes secured by DEHAP be simply annulled, the number of valid votes would the drop from 31,300,000 to 29,350,000.  As the threshold for having any seats in Parliament is 10% of the national total, this reduces the threshold from 3,130,000 to 2,935,000.  As DYP secured just over 3 million votes it would be entitled to enter Parliament with 66 seats, and the AKP would have to cede it 44 of its seats and the CHP 22 of its. Pushing this logic still further would also call into question the Siirt bye-election that gave Prime Minister R.T. Erdogan his seat in Parliament. At the time the High Electoral Council had not allowed the DYP to put up a candidate because it had not passed the national threshold. If the Council authorises it to enter Parliament it would then have to reorganise the Siirt bye-election putting the Prime Minister’s seat in jeopardy.

The DEHAP Party had come top of the poll in thirteen of the Kurdistan provinces, including Siirt — and would have had 51 members of Parliament had the threshold only been 5% instead of 10.

Furthermore the Constitutional Court is due to rule on the case of the pro-Kurdish HADEP party, banned under Article 8/1 of the Anti-Terrorist Act, since abrogated in the context of the efforts to harmonise Turkey’s legislation to secure entry to the EU. Since seven of its leaders have been sentenced under this article, the party was, in consequence banned and 46 members stripped of all civic and political rights. The latter have, consequently appealed to the Constitutional Court, on the grounds of the abrogation of Article 8/1 — and the Court is due to rule on the acceptability of this appeal on 11 September.