Silencing dissenting voices will not solve the problem
Surrounded by a group of Turkish students in a car park at a university in south east Poland where I recently did a guest-lecture and book reading, I felt the full weight of controversy in talking about the creation of a Kurdish state - a concept that has been around since the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 as the Ottoman Empire collapsed and the Turkish Republic was established in 1923.
At least nine or ten Turkish students had gathered to inform me that a map, which I use as the plot in my novel Changing Borders was not real. I replied in Turkish ‘it’s a novel!’
‘You do know that map is not real, don’t you. Our friends were very sad when they saw you talk about it,’ a young Turkish girl said in her best English, currently on an Erasmus exchange. ‘We wanted to tell you it’s not real.’
No matter how surreal this incident was, it exposes a worrying mentality of how Turks approach the Kurdish issue. It’s better to reject the notion of the ‘promise’ than consider what went wrong. It is widely reported that Kurds number an estimated 30 million across the region, the largest ethnic population without their own country, although Northern Iraq goes by the name of Kurdistan and is fast becoming the defacto state for Kurds in the region.
The wave of arrests that took place in Turkey yesterday, in which an estimated thirty journalists were detained, their offices ransacked by police, and camera equipment confiscated is just part of a ‘pre-planned campaign to silence critical voices from within the Kurdish community,’ an MP from the Kurdish bloc told me by phone.
Police began their dawn raids at around 5 am, and proceeded to copy the hard drives of computers, confiscate cameras because memory sticks ‘couldn’t be copied on site’, and then detain those who work at news agencies of mostly Kurdish origin, although the local AFP photographer Mustafa Ozer was also taken under custody.
The pretext was that these people are suspected of being members of the Kurdish Communities Union or KCK, ‘the urban arm of the PKK’ as the police describe it. However, the KCK has yet to be proven as an illegal entity, so these journalists were arrested for what exactly? For reporting on the ongoing trial into the KCK, which has according to some estimates seen 3900 people detained, some sentenced, some still held without charge.
The idea that the KCK is ‘setting up a parallel state’ has yet to be proven by the courts, but having spoken to MPs from the main opposition party, the CHP, this case seems to have no grounds. Turkey is now discussing a new constitution, which would include more autonomy for the Kurds in the south east, which proposes local government on a municipal level be managed predominantly by Kurds. So what was the motivation behind these arrests?
Turkey ranks one of the highest jailers of journalists in the world. In 2011, the International Press Institute published the findings from a report by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) that placed Iran, China, and Turkey at the top of the list of most journalists in prison. The report by OSCE found that Turkey topped the list with 70 journalists in jail, but that Iran and China also ranked among the worst for journalists behind Turkey. Should these 30 arrested journalists remain behind bars, it has put Turkey way ahead of the competition.
Ahmet Sik and Nedim Sener, two highly respected investigative journalists have been held in prison since March without charge. Last month they were up in court and to the press community’s dismay, they were not released as was expected. The two are accused of being a member of a terror network, aka Ergenekon, plotting to bring down the government. Ironically it has been their investigative work that has gone some way to expose the alleged military plot, so whose side are they on? It’s widely known that Ahmet was arrested for a controversial book he was planning to publish on religious communities within the police force, who follow one of Turkey’s most powerful and untouchable Islamic scholars.
Having lived in Turkey for ten years, and watched three terms of the ruling AKP governance, I can say that yes many things have improved. A Kurdish party is now in the parliament, Kurdish language is no longer banned. A Kurdish channel, although state-run broadcasts, and private channels are set to follow. Kurdish language once banned is now being offered in universities, but freedom of speech is being slowly ebbed away at.
Perhaps we need to start understanding the mentality that is behind this new crackdown in which 30 journalists were arrested.
As offices were raided yesterday and cameras confiscated, I cast my mind back to the car park in Poland. If a tale of fiction can cause such a reaction, what hope is there for real conversation about solving Turkey’s chronic problem of its Kurdish identity, and the military’s intervention in politics.
Journalists feel afraid, ‘my phone number is on Mustafa (Ozer’s) phone,’ a photographer I know confessed to me as the news of the raids broke - wire-tapping is the usual evidence used against the press. Perhaps there will be an explosion of novelists in Turkey as journalists practise many layers of self-censorship to ‘stay safe’, although this has also proven not protective.
With almost 100 journalists in jail, Turkey really should start to question what kind of democracy it wants to be?
Friday, December 23, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
CHANGING BORDERS a novel by J A Sabral
The US book review
"What is the real value of exerting western influence in the fast-changing, difficult to predict Middle East? This is a smart, sexy, international intrigue that raises questions and sheds light on many issues of this part of the world."
Todays Zaman
"A political tale of scandal and intrigue, Sabral exposes the sordid underbelly of Western policy in a fast-paced novel aimed at questioning the value of and motivations behind Western interference in the Middle East."
ebook - International intrigue on Iran-US-Turkey relations https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B005NBLMVC
paperback :http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/changing-borders/15843818
http://www.theusreview.com/reviews/Changing-Sabral.html
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Find what makes you tick and save time on it.
21.12.2012
Is the end of the world near as predicted by some astrologists? Or, is it just hype falsely distributed? Seemingly, the world will be passing through mass changes in the next twelve months, which will culminate, according to these scientists, in a prophetic revelation - or - the end of the world.
A list of disaters are being pitched as the catalyst for the most catastrophic event in documented history. Take your pick; climate change, Tsunamis, earthquakes, the Freeze, volcanic ash, plagues and The Economy. The word on the street, is, however, that the world will go through a "major shift". And don't we need one? Aren't we all secretly dreaming of a world in which we do business differently?
We are so busy documenting what is happening now, that we are not discussing what comes next. Or, what kind of economic model(s) would suit this new visionary world - a world in which we've stopped to think how our spending affects our future. Is there anyone out there really talking about this? Or are we all too consumed by trying to make a buck out of someone else's misery?
Much cynicism is circulating in European and Middle Eastern intellectuals circles towards the Wall Street protests."It's become a bitching fest" was one comment I read on Facebook this week. But isn't it Wall Street where this all began?
The Wall Street protesters have an historic right to protest the way America educates future economists? The notion that we must find a rational way to live with capitalism is starting to resonate with many American consumers. And, it will be consumer patterns that dicates how globally dominant the US government may be. The narrative that consumerism takes a way the pain is changing.
America has been known to innovate through history because of people's movements, and this is not to dismiss its war like policies. But many of the interventions and occupations were tied into economic theory. On human rights, positive discrimination for minorities has pushed reform in many corners of the world. Perhaps, the US just needs to stop intervening in other countries economies? Wouldn't that be the end of the world as we know it?
The globalised world must find a way to regulate itself, while providing enough free space for innovation and creative action that can be admired by people and aspired to.
"Tactical Camoflauge" the name of a group action to dress Occupy Wall Street protesters in suits, is an astounding example of creative thinking. This is an admirable example of peaceful demonstration based on self-reflection. It pokes fun at "The capitalist" silently with visual aesthetics.
If the state continues to write off corporate debt and exclude people from this bonus scheme run by a group of bandits a deeper crisis may occur, say some economists. This kind of ignorance practised by the government could trigger millions of people to use traditional methods such as bankruptcy to write off personal debt, say the same economists.
It may not be a bad thing. This kind of revolt against the credit system needs to happen before a real "shift" can take place. Will it be the end of the world as we know it? Of course! But what will come next? The upside? We have at least twelve months to prepare, but who knows how many will survive.
21.12.2012
Is the end of the world near as predicted by some astrologists? Or, is it just hype falsely distributed? Seemingly, the world will be passing through mass changes in the next twelve months, which will culminate, according to these scientists, in a prophetic revelation - or - the end of the world.
A list of disaters are being pitched as the catalyst for the most catastrophic event in documented history. Take your pick; climate change, Tsunamis, earthquakes, the Freeze, volcanic ash, plagues and The Economy. The word on the street, is, however, that the world will go through a "major shift". And don't we need one? Aren't we all secretly dreaming of a world in which we do business differently?
We are so busy documenting what is happening now, that we are not discussing what comes next. Or, what kind of economic model(s) would suit this new visionary world - a world in which we've stopped to think how our spending affects our future. Is there anyone out there really talking about this? Or are we all too consumed by trying to make a buck out of someone else's misery?
Much cynicism is circulating in European and Middle Eastern intellectuals circles towards the Wall Street protests."It's become a bitching fest" was one comment I read on Facebook this week. But isn't it Wall Street where this all began?
The Wall Street protesters have an historic right to protest the way America educates future economists? The notion that we must find a rational way to live with capitalism is starting to resonate with many American consumers. And, it will be consumer patterns that dicates how globally dominant the US government may be. The narrative that consumerism takes a way the pain is changing.
America has been known to innovate through history because of people's movements, and this is not to dismiss its war like policies. But many of the interventions and occupations were tied into economic theory. On human rights, positive discrimination for minorities has pushed reform in many corners of the world. Perhaps, the US just needs to stop intervening in other countries economies? Wouldn't that be the end of the world as we know it?
The globalised world must find a way to regulate itself, while providing enough free space for innovation and creative action that can be admired by people and aspired to.
"Tactical Camoflauge" the name of a group action to dress Occupy Wall Street protesters in suits, is an astounding example of creative thinking. This is an admirable example of peaceful demonstration based on self-reflection. It pokes fun at "The capitalist" silently with visual aesthetics.
If the state continues to write off corporate debt and exclude people from this bonus scheme run by a group of bandits a deeper crisis may occur, say some economists. This kind of ignorance practised by the government could trigger millions of people to use traditional methods such as bankruptcy to write off personal debt, say the same economists.
It may not be a bad thing. This kind of revolt against the credit system needs to happen before a real "shift" can take place. Will it be the end of the world as we know it? Of course! But what will come next? The upside? We have at least twelve months to prepare, but who knows how many will survive.
Friday, September 09, 2011
The real threat to Turkey and the missile shield
On May 29th, 1910, Britain's embassy staff in Istanbul compiled a report for power brokers back in London about who were to be the new leaders of the soon-to-be-formed Turkish republic. What became known as the FitzMaurice and Lowther report, David Fromkin writes in his epic book "A Peace to End All Peace" concluded that "the Young Turks leaders were foreigners, not Turks, and that they served foreign interests". Fromkin also writes, "This was the opposite of the truth, and led British observers to miscalculate what the Young Turk government would do."
As Oscar Wilde wrote, "Experience is one thing you can't get for nothing." So if history has anything to teach us, it is that in times of conflict, national interest will always come first and that Western diplomats stationed in Turkey are not so apt at reading between the lines. The Wikileaks cables demonstrate these miscalculations. There have often been wrong assumptions when it comes to Turkey, a country that is constantly criticised from within for not setting its own agenda but rather following one that is spoon fed by Washington. But is it time to perhaps turn this myth on its head? Sure Turkey can not act alone, its geography dictates that it must form an alliance of sorts in times of conflict. During both world wars of the twentieth century, Turkey chose to remain on the side of caution until it was forced to choose - a wise decision for a country that straddles Europe and Asia, bordering Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia, Iran, Syria and Iraq not to mention Russia two days north by Sea and Egypt to the south.
The deployment of the NATO-led missile shield (worth an estimated 4 billions dollars) in Turkey with little or no opposition by a public who are seemingly anti-interventionalist - Turkish public outcry prevented the US from forming a northern front during the Iraq war - begs one question. Where does Turkey see, in the words of the US administration,"an imminent threat of incoming missiles"? An American lobbyist earlier this week claimed that Turkey was deploying the early-warning missile system against Iran. Tehran as expected reacted with harsh words of criticism stating its national interest will not be threatened by any country. But Turkey has not reacted to either commentary and why?
This week Turkish-Israeli relations reached an historic point of potential conflict after Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan promised to deploy the Turkish navy on the Eastern Mediterranean to escort aid ships trying to reach Gaza. In response, Israeli Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor described the comments as "grave and serious". And all of this because Israel arrogantly refuses to offer a simple apology for the deaths of nine Turkish activists who were slain onboard an international aid flotilla last year that attempted to break the blockade on Gaza.
Speaking to the vice-president of IHH charity, the organisation that lead the aid-flotilla, may provide some insight into why Turkey has not reacted to the Iranian posturing and rather is seeking to deploy the missile shield with little or no public opposition. Who do Turks view as the aggressor here? Their Islamic neighbour or the rogue state who seemingly doesn't respect the lives of nine of its citizens.
Huseyin Oruc, the vice-president of IHH, explains why he thinks Israel used such brute force against the Turkish ship."Maybe there are many answers. But from our side as a humanitarian organisation it is impossible to answer. We don't think like them. If they had an ounce of humanitarian thought they couldn't act like this. Therefore I couldn't understand. But what we have realised is that there is a very significant level of hostility against the Turkish nation. They are always talking about the friendship betweeen the Turkish government and the Israeli government, the Turkish nation and the Jewish people. But what we realise is that it's not true."
IHH has been accused by some Western governments of supporting a radical Islamists agenda, one that rejects Western ideals. Whether this is a fair assessment is not my argument. It simply can not be ignored that the charity does provide aid to millions of vulnerabe people world-wide from Somalia to Palestine and has a popular international following. It is this position that has exposed Israeli aggression to a mass audience for the first time. It can also not be ignored that people on the street in Turkey feel pretty much the same as Huseyin. Here are some voxpops we gathered on Friday from pro-secular non-AK party voters.
"I don't find them honest, I expected them to be more honest. They are not our friends," Ayse, 44-years-old.
"The US and Europe haven't criticised Israel enough. Israel tortures Palestinians, and Israel effects the world badly," Murat, 25-years-old.
"Israel is trouble for everyone. I think Turkey shouldn't have a relationship with Israel. We don't need them," Ahmet, 52-years-old.
Turkey recognised Israel in 1949, but the relationship has never been easy. And since Erdogan's AK Party come to power in 2002, it has taken a decidingly downward trend. Having improved some of its human rights issues while growing its economy, emboldened with a new confidence, Turkey no longer feels the need to heed Israeli policies in the region as it once did. Whether this translates into Turkish perceptions over an Israeli threat rather than the US driven narrative that Iran poses the problem is difficult to assess. But one only needs to listen to the many voices in Turkey to understand where Turks think the conflict resonates from.
Turkey feels Israel has reached a point of no return. The arrogance of Israeli hardliners is a sentiment that Turkish diplomacy can no longer stomach. It pains Turkish culture for the Israeli governent not to mourn the dead nine young peace activists who died on that fatal night.
James Baldwin wrote, "People are trapped in history, and history is trapped in them." Is Israel to be trapped by the modern history it is effortlessly now writing? The events of the past twenty-four hours should serve as a warning. Scenes of Egyptians storming the Israeli embassy in Cairo are quite telling. Protesters tore down the newly built security wall with their bare hands. Is this the new Middle East Israelis want to live in? One where their allies are no longer able to ignore the outpouring of popular protest and the hypocrisy of ambivelance.
On May 29th, 1910, Britain's embassy staff in Istanbul compiled a report for power brokers back in London about who were to be the new leaders of the soon-to-be-formed Turkish republic. What became known as the FitzMaurice and Lowther report, David Fromkin writes in his epic book "A Peace to End All Peace" concluded that "the Young Turks leaders were foreigners, not Turks, and that they served foreign interests". Fromkin also writes, "This was the opposite of the truth, and led British observers to miscalculate what the Young Turk government would do."
As Oscar Wilde wrote, "Experience is one thing you can't get for nothing." So if history has anything to teach us, it is that in times of conflict, national interest will always come first and that Western diplomats stationed in Turkey are not so apt at reading between the lines. The Wikileaks cables demonstrate these miscalculations. There have often been wrong assumptions when it comes to Turkey, a country that is constantly criticised from within for not setting its own agenda but rather following one that is spoon fed by Washington. But is it time to perhaps turn this myth on its head? Sure Turkey can not act alone, its geography dictates that it must form an alliance of sorts in times of conflict. During both world wars of the twentieth century, Turkey chose to remain on the side of caution until it was forced to choose - a wise decision for a country that straddles Europe and Asia, bordering Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia, Iran, Syria and Iraq not to mention Russia two days north by Sea and Egypt to the south.
The deployment of the NATO-led missile shield (worth an estimated 4 billions dollars) in Turkey with little or no opposition by a public who are seemingly anti-interventionalist - Turkish public outcry prevented the US from forming a northern front during the Iraq war - begs one question. Where does Turkey see, in the words of the US administration,"an imminent threat of incoming missiles"? An American lobbyist earlier this week claimed that Turkey was deploying the early-warning missile system against Iran. Tehran as expected reacted with harsh words of criticism stating its national interest will not be threatened by any country. But Turkey has not reacted to either commentary and why?
This week Turkish-Israeli relations reached an historic point of potential conflict after Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan promised to deploy the Turkish navy on the Eastern Mediterranean to escort aid ships trying to reach Gaza. In response, Israeli Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor described the comments as "grave and serious". And all of this because Israel arrogantly refuses to offer a simple apology for the deaths of nine Turkish activists who were slain onboard an international aid flotilla last year that attempted to break the blockade on Gaza.
Speaking to the vice-president of IHH charity, the organisation that lead the aid-flotilla, may provide some insight into why Turkey has not reacted to the Iranian posturing and rather is seeking to deploy the missile shield with little or no public opposition. Who do Turks view as the aggressor here? Their Islamic neighbour or the rogue state who seemingly doesn't respect the lives of nine of its citizens.
Huseyin Oruc, the vice-president of IHH, explains why he thinks Israel used such brute force against the Turkish ship."Maybe there are many answers. But from our side as a humanitarian organisation it is impossible to answer. We don't think like them. If they had an ounce of humanitarian thought they couldn't act like this. Therefore I couldn't understand. But what we have realised is that there is a very significant level of hostility against the Turkish nation. They are always talking about the friendship betweeen the Turkish government and the Israeli government, the Turkish nation and the Jewish people. But what we realise is that it's not true."
IHH has been accused by some Western governments of supporting a radical Islamists agenda, one that rejects Western ideals. Whether this is a fair assessment is not my argument. It simply can not be ignored that the charity does provide aid to millions of vulnerabe people world-wide from Somalia to Palestine and has a popular international following. It is this position that has exposed Israeli aggression to a mass audience for the first time. It can also not be ignored that people on the street in Turkey feel pretty much the same as Huseyin. Here are some voxpops we gathered on Friday from pro-secular non-AK party voters.
"I don't find them honest, I expected them to be more honest. They are not our friends," Ayse, 44-years-old.
"The US and Europe haven't criticised Israel enough. Israel tortures Palestinians, and Israel effects the world badly," Murat, 25-years-old.
"Israel is trouble for everyone. I think Turkey shouldn't have a relationship with Israel. We don't need them," Ahmet, 52-years-old.
Turkey recognised Israel in 1949, but the relationship has never been easy. And since Erdogan's AK Party come to power in 2002, it has taken a decidingly downward trend. Having improved some of its human rights issues while growing its economy, emboldened with a new confidence, Turkey no longer feels the need to heed Israeli policies in the region as it once did. Whether this translates into Turkish perceptions over an Israeli threat rather than the US driven narrative that Iran poses the problem is difficult to assess. But one only needs to listen to the many voices in Turkey to understand where Turks think the conflict resonates from.
Turkey feels Israel has reached a point of no return. The arrogance of Israeli hardliners is a sentiment that Turkish diplomacy can no longer stomach. It pains Turkish culture for the Israeli governent not to mourn the dead nine young peace activists who died on that fatal night.
James Baldwin wrote, "People are trapped in history, and history is trapped in them." Is Israel to be trapped by the modern history it is effortlessly now writing? The events of the past twenty-four hours should serve as a warning. Scenes of Egyptians storming the Israeli embassy in Cairo are quite telling. Protesters tore down the newly built security wall with their bare hands. Is this the new Middle East Israelis want to live in? One where their allies are no longer able to ignore the outpouring of popular protest and the hypocrisy of ambivelance.
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The age of consensus; a pipe dream.
Grey skies linger over a pro-Kurdish demonstration in Istanbul. Police used pepper gas and water cannons against the peaceful protestors.
Just two weeks after parliamentary elections were held, Turkey finds itself more divided than ever. Will this sentiment play into the hands of the ruling conservatives who are looking more decisively ready to go it alone on ushering in a new constitution? And what does this say about the state of democracy in this burned out EU candidate member state?
The prime minister has ignored the calls of the opposition to find a way out of the current stalemate brought about because independently elected MPs were not freed from prison to take their oath in parliament on Tuesday.
"Whether the opposition comes to parliament or not, there is no legal obstacle preventing parliament from functioning. They will see how parliamentary commissions work," Erdogan is quoted as saying in Today's Zaman newspaper.
The prime minister it seems has no intention in solving the current stand off with the main opposition party and the pro-Kurdish bloc, both of whom boycotted the oath taking ceremony in protest that their deputies are still behind bars.
Has the opposition miscalculated their political power again? Supporters of the CHP were almost ecstatic when the party leader announced, he and his party, would not take the oath on Tuesday. The decision was hailed as a courageous principaled step. However, on reflection these same supporters now question whether it was a bold move or just plain stupidity.
"They didn't take the oath, but they were in parliament on that day. So there was enough quorum. If they really wanted to protest what were they doing in the parliament? That would have been a much bolder protest that would have held more meaning," one supporter told me.
While confusion reigns over whether the independently elected MPs should have been released from prison in time to take the oath, as was, Sebahat Tuncel in the 2007 elections - she was elected from prison. The so-called consensus that Prime Minister Erdogan offered on election night seems further away than ever.
The question over whether convicted MPs such as Hatip Dicle should have been released apparently pertains to their sentence time. Dicle recieved a one-year eight-months sentence for making propaganda for a terrorist organisation. The labyrinth of Turkish law, which no one seems able to make any sense of, as is usually the case in Turkey, I believe, states that candidates serving more than a one-year prison sentence do not qualify to run in the elections. So why did Dicle apply for candidacy? And why did the Supreme Election Board permit him to run?
In contrast, Sebahat Tuncel, an independent MP, who was convicted of belonging to a terrorist group - a much more serious crime in the judicial sense - was able to seek re-election, after her 18-month sentence was reduced to six months by an Istanbul court, two months ahead of the elections.
Confused? The Turkish judicial system is clearly disfunctional. But this disfunctionality it seems could play further into the hands of the ruling conservatives, who are looking more and more likely to go it alone on rewriting the consitution.
"They may be looking to strike while the iron is hot," a Turkish journalist told me.
Although AKP lost seats in the June parliamentary election, the prime minister's party recieved 50 percent of the popular vote. In the eyes of the ruling party, this may be all the validation they need to hold a public referendum on Turkey's long awaited constitution. It clearly signals a YES vote at the ballot boxes.
But could they? And would they go it alone? The AKP only need to rally an extra four MPs in the legislature to vote on taking the new consitution to a public referendum. Hatip Dicle's seat has already been given to an AKP candidate, so now they need three. The MHP took their oath on Tuesday and have promised to back AKP's consitution. And, the markets have shown no reaction to the current political stand off in Ankara, which pretty much paves the way for AKP to confidentally get on with the job at hand.
A draft constitution has been knocking around for a few years, so why not just get on with it? Do AKP supporters care whether there is consensus?
What does this mean for the future of Turkey? The prime minister wants to bring in a presidential system that would seal his ultimate grip on power. Are we watching an autocratic regime in the making, as others in the region fall? Does Europe understand what's at stake here? Do Turks understand what this means in the long-term? Are fears that the secular state will be undermined legitimate in this context? Is the prime minister sincere in his claims of wanting to solve the Kurdish issue?
"I will seek consensus with all parties. The nation has spoken and called for a negotiated constitution. I am the negotiator of the new consitution," the prime minister said on election night in his victory speech. We the foreign press reported it, hoping that finally Turkish democracy would be propelled forward and that real negotiations would start.
"Both the main opposition CHP and AKP don't want to take responsibility for making amendments to the law now that would free these MPs. Because these changes may, later down the road, pave the way for the likes of Abdullah Ocalan (the imprisoned leader of the PKK) to stand in parliamentary elections, and no one wants to take responsible for that," a friend commented.
So where do we go from here? The parliament will elect a speaker of the house on Monday. How will the CHP act? The parliament will then go to summer recess, probably at the end of this month. This will provide Prime Minister Erdogan a couple months to plot his next move. Will he seek consensus and deliver an inclusive consitution? Or will he as many opposition supporters now fear, go it alone?
Grey skies linger over a pro-Kurdish demonstration in Istanbul. Police used pepper gas and water cannons against the peaceful protestors.
Just two weeks after parliamentary elections were held, Turkey finds itself more divided than ever. Will this sentiment play into the hands of the ruling conservatives who are looking more decisively ready to go it alone on ushering in a new constitution? And what does this say about the state of democracy in this burned out EU candidate member state?
The prime minister has ignored the calls of the opposition to find a way out of the current stalemate brought about because independently elected MPs were not freed from prison to take their oath in parliament on Tuesday.
"Whether the opposition comes to parliament or not, there is no legal obstacle preventing parliament from functioning. They will see how parliamentary commissions work," Erdogan is quoted as saying in Today's Zaman newspaper.
The prime minister it seems has no intention in solving the current stand off with the main opposition party and the pro-Kurdish bloc, both of whom boycotted the oath taking ceremony in protest that their deputies are still behind bars.
Has the opposition miscalculated their political power again? Supporters of the CHP were almost ecstatic when the party leader announced, he and his party, would not take the oath on Tuesday. The decision was hailed as a courageous principaled step. However, on reflection these same supporters now question whether it was a bold move or just plain stupidity.
"They didn't take the oath, but they were in parliament on that day. So there was enough quorum. If they really wanted to protest what were they doing in the parliament? That would have been a much bolder protest that would have held more meaning," one supporter told me.
While confusion reigns over whether the independently elected MPs should have been released from prison in time to take the oath, as was, Sebahat Tuncel in the 2007 elections - she was elected from prison. The so-called consensus that Prime Minister Erdogan offered on election night seems further away than ever.
The question over whether convicted MPs such as Hatip Dicle should have been released apparently pertains to their sentence time. Dicle recieved a one-year eight-months sentence for making propaganda for a terrorist organisation. The labyrinth of Turkish law, which no one seems able to make any sense of, as is usually the case in Turkey, I believe, states that candidates serving more than a one-year prison sentence do not qualify to run in the elections. So why did Dicle apply for candidacy? And why did the Supreme Election Board permit him to run?
In contrast, Sebahat Tuncel, an independent MP, who was convicted of belonging to a terrorist group - a much more serious crime in the judicial sense - was able to seek re-election, after her 18-month sentence was reduced to six months by an Istanbul court, two months ahead of the elections.
Confused? The Turkish judicial system is clearly disfunctional. But this disfunctionality it seems could play further into the hands of the ruling conservatives, who are looking more and more likely to go it alone on rewriting the consitution.
"They may be looking to strike while the iron is hot," a Turkish journalist told me.
Although AKP lost seats in the June parliamentary election, the prime minister's party recieved 50 percent of the popular vote. In the eyes of the ruling party, this may be all the validation they need to hold a public referendum on Turkey's long awaited constitution. It clearly signals a YES vote at the ballot boxes.
But could they? And would they go it alone? The AKP only need to rally an extra four MPs in the legislature to vote on taking the new consitution to a public referendum. Hatip Dicle's seat has already been given to an AKP candidate, so now they need three. The MHP took their oath on Tuesday and have promised to back AKP's consitution. And, the markets have shown no reaction to the current political stand off in Ankara, which pretty much paves the way for AKP to confidentally get on with the job at hand.
A draft constitution has been knocking around for a few years, so why not just get on with it? Do AKP supporters care whether there is consensus?
What does this mean for the future of Turkey? The prime minister wants to bring in a presidential system that would seal his ultimate grip on power. Are we watching an autocratic regime in the making, as others in the region fall? Does Europe understand what's at stake here? Do Turks understand what this means in the long-term? Are fears that the secular state will be undermined legitimate in this context? Is the prime minister sincere in his claims of wanting to solve the Kurdish issue?
"I will seek consensus with all parties. The nation has spoken and called for a negotiated constitution. I am the negotiator of the new consitution," the prime minister said on election night in his victory speech. We the foreign press reported it, hoping that finally Turkish democracy would be propelled forward and that real negotiations would start.
"Both the main opposition CHP and AKP don't want to take responsibility for making amendments to the law now that would free these MPs. Because these changes may, later down the road, pave the way for the likes of Abdullah Ocalan (the imprisoned leader of the PKK) to stand in parliamentary elections, and no one wants to take responsible for that," a friend commented.
So where do we go from here? The parliament will elect a speaker of the house on Monday. How will the CHP act? The parliament will then go to summer recess, probably at the end of this month. This will provide Prime Minister Erdogan a couple months to plot his next move. Will he seek consensus and deliver an inclusive consitution? Or will he as many opposition supporters now fear, go it alone?
Monday, June 27, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
What started out as a peaceful demonstration beneath the Ottoman minarets of Sisli mosque quickly spun into a day of anger and frustration for Istanbul's Kurdish residents. The contrast between young Kurds dancing for peace and police regiments putting on their gas masks was a stark reminder that Turkey has a long way to go in resolving the Kurdish issue.
Having reported from hundreds of protests in central Istanbul over the past four years, both I and my cameraman, watched knowingly as the police decisively put on their gas masks in preparation of the end game. Even we were surprised by the sheer force that was used against the demonstrators.
What had started out as a sunny Sunday of peaceful protest ended in tears and fear. A five-year old boy, who lost his parents in the pepper gas panic, was scooped up off the street and carried to safety by a policeman. The limp body of the boy was snatched back from the strong arms by a demonstrator and passed from one person to another until he reached the safety of a cafe. The policeman was verbally ridiculed for his actions that had led to the child trauma. One woman even dared to hit him with her handbag, she was so enraged. An angry group of elderly people protectively pushed the police back away from the cafe.
Forty minutes before the brutal "clearance strategy" was unleashed, we were in a different world, smiling and enjoying the carnival atmosphere - weaving in and out of lines of young and old Kurds holding hands and dancing to traditional folk songs. We asked people how they felt. One after another they lined up to talk to us.
"We came here for peace, but there is a lot of pressure everywhere. We don't want to feel under pressure. Our elected representatives got thousands of votes, but he's not free. We want peace, democracy and our own language rights."
The elected MP this woman was talking about is Hatip Dicle, who ran as an independent candidate backed by the pro-Kurdish Labour, Democracy and Freedom Bloc. Hatip Dicle is serving a prison sentence. He is charged with supporting a terrorist group. However, in Turkey, parliamentary candidates can run from prison in general elections. And, if elected, they are granted parliamentary immunity, which effectively postpones the charges until they are no longer an MP. Dicle was not granted this immunity, and has not been released from prison. He has instead been disbarred and stripped of his deputyship. His seat has been given to a member of the ruling party AKP, a move that has further angered the Kurdish community.
"We are here for our representative Hatip Dicle. We support his freedom and rights. The prime minister has stolen our 80,000 votes. It's shameful that AK party gave Hatip's seat to a member of their party."
While there has been a lot of commentary over an apparent YSK "decision" that disqualified Dicle from entering the election race. Ertugrul Kurkcu, a newly elected independent MP, refuted these claims. Kurkcu pointed out that Dicle's name was on the ballot papers, which facilitated his candidacy. Kurkcu was also at the demonstration.
"The Supreme Election Board accepted his candidacy. So for this reason, the responsibility belongs to the the board not Hatip Dicle. He entered the election, and won the votes. They didn't say anything. Now they've disbarred him."
The pro-Kurdish bloc has taken a collective position by refusing to enter the parliament. Sebahat Tuncel, an independent MP, who ran from prison in the 2007 elections and was re-elected on June 12th, explained the delicate position the block now finds themselves in.
"We got a good result in the election, but the decision of the YSK has put pressure on the Kurdish people. The reason we are in parliament is to solve the Kurdish issue, to promote democracy and contribute to the new constitution. But if we enter under these circumstance it won't be valid."
Tuncel's comments some up the intricate politiking that Kurdish politicians must tread. She knows that parliament is the platform where the Kurdish issue can be solved. But at the same time, she also knows that she can not ignore the feelings of those who elected her. There has also been rumours that the Kurdish block plan to veto parliament until bi-elections are held, effectively creating a political crisis for Turkey. Tuncel rejected these claims.
"We are not going to resign. There is no bi-elections. Our people gave us this duty. Only, we will not go to the parliament. If we resign at this time there could be a bi-election. But it's not useful to us. There would be no benefit for Turkey or for us. We don't want to create a larger political crisis."
The government must act swiflty to resolve the stand off. If it doesn't, the state will have won. It's no coincidence that the YSK allowed Dicle to run and then disbarred him after thousands of people cast their votes. This incident shows the cracks in Turkish democracy, where the militarised state is still grasping for control. The agenda is to protect the status quo.
Kurdish politicians must be supported in their political endeavours or there will be a return to violence, which no one wants. AKP have a historic chance in this term to fight back and resolve this chronic problem through democractic moves. Images of a five-year-old boy being gassed will not help.
Standing along side the demonstrators, we too felt the powerful effects of pepper gas. Our eyes were stinging, our throats contracted. We were gagged and blinded by the state.
Having reported from hundreds of protests in central Istanbul over the past four years, both I and my cameraman, watched knowingly as the police decisively put on their gas masks in preparation of the end game. Even we were surprised by the sheer force that was used against the demonstrators.
What had started out as a sunny Sunday of peaceful protest ended in tears and fear. A five-year old boy, who lost his parents in the pepper gas panic, was scooped up off the street and carried to safety by a policeman. The limp body of the boy was snatched back from the strong arms by a demonstrator and passed from one person to another until he reached the safety of a cafe. The policeman was verbally ridiculed for his actions that had led to the child trauma. One woman even dared to hit him with her handbag, she was so enraged. An angry group of elderly people protectively pushed the police back away from the cafe.
Forty minutes before the brutal "clearance strategy" was unleashed, we were in a different world, smiling and enjoying the carnival atmosphere - weaving in and out of lines of young and old Kurds holding hands and dancing to traditional folk songs. We asked people how they felt. One after another they lined up to talk to us.
"We came here for peace, but there is a lot of pressure everywhere. We don't want to feel under pressure. Our elected representatives got thousands of votes, but he's not free. We want peace, democracy and our own language rights."
The elected MP this woman was talking about is Hatip Dicle, who ran as an independent candidate backed by the pro-Kurdish Labour, Democracy and Freedom Bloc. Hatip Dicle is serving a prison sentence. He is charged with supporting a terrorist group. However, in Turkey, parliamentary candidates can run from prison in general elections. And, if elected, they are granted parliamentary immunity, which effectively postpones the charges until they are no longer an MP. Dicle was not granted this immunity, and has not been released from prison. He has instead been disbarred and stripped of his deputyship. His seat has been given to a member of the ruling party AKP, a move that has further angered the Kurdish community.
"We are here for our representative Hatip Dicle. We support his freedom and rights. The prime minister has stolen our 80,000 votes. It's shameful that AK party gave Hatip's seat to a member of their party."
While there has been a lot of commentary over an apparent YSK "decision" that disqualified Dicle from entering the election race. Ertugrul Kurkcu, a newly elected independent MP, refuted these claims. Kurkcu pointed out that Dicle's name was on the ballot papers, which facilitated his candidacy. Kurkcu was also at the demonstration.
"The Supreme Election Board accepted his candidacy. So for this reason, the responsibility belongs to the the board not Hatip Dicle. He entered the election, and won the votes. They didn't say anything. Now they've disbarred him."
The pro-Kurdish bloc has taken a collective position by refusing to enter the parliament. Sebahat Tuncel, an independent MP, who ran from prison in the 2007 elections and was re-elected on June 12th, explained the delicate position the block now finds themselves in.
"We got a good result in the election, but the decision of the YSK has put pressure on the Kurdish people. The reason we are in parliament is to solve the Kurdish issue, to promote democracy and contribute to the new constitution. But if we enter under these circumstance it won't be valid."
Tuncel's comments some up the intricate politiking that Kurdish politicians must tread. She knows that parliament is the platform where the Kurdish issue can be solved. But at the same time, she also knows that she can not ignore the feelings of those who elected her. There has also been rumours that the Kurdish block plan to veto parliament until bi-elections are held, effectively creating a political crisis for Turkey. Tuncel rejected these claims.
"We are not going to resign. There is no bi-elections. Our people gave us this duty. Only, we will not go to the parliament. If we resign at this time there could be a bi-election. But it's not useful to us. There would be no benefit for Turkey or for us. We don't want to create a larger political crisis."
The government must act swiflty to resolve the stand off. If it doesn't, the state will have won. It's no coincidence that the YSK allowed Dicle to run and then disbarred him after thousands of people cast their votes. This incident shows the cracks in Turkish democracy, where the militarised state is still grasping for control. The agenda is to protect the status quo.
Kurdish politicians must be supported in their political endeavours or there will be a return to violence, which no one wants. AKP have a historic chance in this term to fight back and resolve this chronic problem through democractic moves. Images of a five-year-old boy being gassed will not help.
Standing along side the demonstrators, we too felt the powerful effects of pepper gas. Our eyes were stinging, our throats contracted. We were gagged and blinded by the state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)