Brussels, 11th June 2002

(...) Main findings

The Turkish authorities in both Diyarbakir and Bingöl stated that they were not involved in the issue of whether or not to close down HADEP - this was a matter for the independent judiciary. However the Turkish Emergency Rule Governor claimed that HADEP had been active in sending its members to rural areas to join the PKK and that the Kurdish television station Medya-TV also gave instructions to members of the PKK.

The Director General of the Ministry of Justice stated that the evidence showed that HADEP had been aiding and abetting the PKK, including acting as a recruitment and training agency for it. There are 34 separate cases to be heard by the Court, against a total of 68 "senior members" of the party. She questioned if the European Parliament was really being very helpful in intervening in a judicial process and whether such a political approach was consistent with European norms of respect for the independence of the judiciary.

HADEP representatives stressed that the PKK had a wide base of support in the region and acknowledged that in some parts of its programme there was overlap with HADEP demands - i.e. the calls for an end of emergency rule, an end to the village guard system, the introduction of education in the Kurdish language and more media freedoms. However HADEP had been founded to promote democratic solutions to the problems of the Kurdish population and there were no organic links with the PKK. HADEP did not support the PKK's actions, however it underlined the need to understand why people had felt forced to take up arms. The cease-fire in 1999 had given HADEP the opportunity to pursue its policies of peaceful promotion of Kurdish rights, however the Turkish government was not making any positive steps to reciprocate.

HADEP and NGO representatives warned that the decision to include the PKK on the list of terrorist organisations would give the Turkish authorities the excuse to crack down further on HADEP and the Kurdish people in general. Indeed they noted that the Turkish authorities had already seen the post-September 11 war on terrorism as an excuse to crack down on the Kurdish population. They pointed to "public outrage" among Kurds at the EU's decision, particularly as the PKK had adhered to its cease-fire.

HADEP representatives in Ankara stressed that many of the Kurdish people did not consider the PKK to be a terrorist organisation and that there were individual links between HADEP and PKK supporters, The NGOs also rejected the use of violence. However they stressed that this violence should be seen against a background of oppression in which civilians were being murdered and there was forced resettlement of rural populations. The Turkish government had created the conditions which led to the founding of the PKK. The NGOs also stated that they too were targeted by the government, which saw them as having links to terrorism.

There were many complaints from HADEP representatives of legal proceedings being taken against them on charges of involvement with terrorism. One individual in Diyarbakir spoke of experiencing personally 87 legal proceedings against him of which 20 were still ongoing.

The Diyarbakir Bar Association accepted that some individuals were members of both HADEP and the PKK but argued that this should not be a reason to close down HADEP completely. They believed that the Turkish authorities could not accept the existence of HADEP and therefore sought to close it down with false accusations. They complained of obstacles that the state put in their way when they were seeking to defend their clients.

HADEP representatives stressed that they did not want to be solely a Kurdish party and they wished to gain support from all citizens of Turkey. Currently HADEP received 5% of its support from non-Kurds.

It was seeking to broaden its links with other reformist groups such as trade unions, NGOs and some leftist parties in order to promote democracy in Turkey. Some HADEP representatives argued that moves to close down HADEP were being done for political motives - other parties wanted to lower the 10% threshold to ensure their own representation in the national parliament but did not want this to lead to HADEP gaining a foothold in the Grand Assembly.

The Turkish authorities did not anticipate an uproar if HADEP were closed down as it could always be replaced by a "substitute" party, as had happened before when its predecessors were closed. This was disputed by HADEP representatives who spoke of the serious setback that it would be for them.

HADEP representatives stressed that the fight for democracy in Turkey was not complete. Prior to the military coup of 1980 Kurds had enjoyed some rights. After 1980 the ban on political activities had worsened the situation and the human rights abuses had created an environment in which the PKK had felt forced to take up armed struggle.

HADEP representatives wanted Turkey to join the EU, as they believed this would promote democracy and pluralism. However they considered that there was a long way to go and the government was not taking any positive steps to resolve the current problems and there were still human rights violations and harassment of political activists. The European Union, and the European Parliament in particular, should monitor the situation. There was a role too for some form of "Democracy Council" where problems could be examined.

The Turkish authorities in Diyarbakir claimed that they would like to end the emergency rule regime. On June 1st it was announced that the National Security Council of Turkey had decided to lift the state of emergency in the four provinces of the South East. As from July 30th, the state of emergency will be lifted in the provinces of Hakkari and Tunceli and from November 30th in the provinces of Diyarbakir and Sirnak. There are still 300 armed PKK fighters in the mountains and 4,500 beyond Turkey's borders, where the political vacuum had given them the opportunity to regroup. There are still many landmines and since 2001 there have been 70 explosions resulting in 12 deaths and 45 injuries. They considered that the PKK's cease-fire was not genuine and interception of its radio communications showed that it was planning actions when the time was more propitious.

The Turkish authorities claimed that most allegations of torture by the Turkish military and gendarmes were unfounded. However it was accepted that there might be cases where proper procedures were not followed and these were investigated by the Public Prosecutor and those found guilty were punished.

There was no torture and proper custody areas existed in which doctors were present when prisoners were brought in.

The Turkish authorities stated that people had fled from rural areas between 1992 and 1995 because of the military situation which had led to the abandonment of villages. This situation was now being reversed and people were returning. Assistance was being provided to rebuild houses. However many young people were not keen to return to rural areas after experiencing city life. The Bingöl governor claimed that 38,000 villagers in total had returned, including 14,000 in Bingöl, which had been the most successful region in promoting refugee return. He argued too that the "separatists" were seeking to prevent people returning to the villages These claims would be examined by the European Commission.

HADEP representatives called for a general amnesty for PKK fighters which would, they considered, help to bring about an end to the continued existence of armed groups. A positive precedent existed in Article 169 of the Penal Code whereby the sentences of people who had been tried were delayed. They warned that if PKK fighters were to return now, they would face heavy prison sentences and possibly death.

HADEP representatives also complained at the maintenance of roadblocks and the village guard system in the region after three years of the PKK cease-fire.

They and the government authorities were united in their fear of an Allied strike against Iraq as an extension of the war against Al-Quaida.

The Turkish authorities stressed that Turkey was a unitary state and that learning Kurdish in schools would close off career paths for children and keep the region backward. Emphasis should be placed instead on learning English and science. They pointed out that other unitary states, such as France, also insisted on education in one language. The Bingöl governor also noted that the Kurdish language had four basic dialects which were mutually incomprehensible and this made mother tongue education unrealistic.

HADEP representatives wanted to be able to receive education in Kurdish as well as Turkish. Indeed they noted that they were obliged to read and write in Turkish, as they were illiterate in Kurdish, despite it being their mother tongue.

The Turkish authorities stressed that the economic situation had improved in eastern Anatolia with the opening of new industry and commerce. However in both Bingöl and Diyarbakir they recognised that much still need to be done - particularly in the field of education where there was a low literacy rate and many children were not attending school. They stressed the need for more schools and smaller classroom sizes and outlined progress in this direction. They considered that the social and economic development of the region was not complete and contributed to the overall problem. EU aid would help promote peace and stability.

HADEP representatives complained about a lack of economic investment in the region The Governor of Bingöl stressed that he worked together with the mayor to promote the interests of the community and he made no differentiation between the different political parties in the city. This claim was rejected by the Bingöl Mayor who stated that the Governor could not accept his presence and had never entered the municipality building in the three years he had been in office. He was also not allowed into military bases for national day celebrations.

The European Parliament delegation did not consider that the Turkish authorities had provided proof that HADEP as a party, or any of its leaders, was linked organically to the PKK. It noted that HADEP administrators were usually acquitted of the charge of links with terrorism when they were taken to court.

However the MEPs recognised that some individuals at grassroots level might have ties to both organisations, and that both HADEP and the PKK command considerable support among Kurds despite their different objectives and separate character.

MEPs believed that it was essential that Kurdish interests should fully be represented within the Turkish political system. They considered that HADEP was an autonomous, non-violent party which stood for equal rights for the Kurdish people but not for separatism. They hoped it would become more involved in main stream politics. They reiterated the position of the European Parliament in its resolution of 28 February 2002 that the banning of HADEP would be a serious setback to democracy in Turkey and that the legal proceedings should be dropped. If certain individuals had been implicated in terrorist acts they should be prosecuted in their own right. HADEP should not have to take collective responsibility for terrorism or separatism. Indeed, extremism would only be encouraged if peaceful political forces were suppressed.

The delegation expressed the European Parliament's total rejection of terrorism and noted the decision of the EU Council of Ministers of 2nd May 2002 to consider the PKK as a terrorist organisation. It also noted that following the PKK's announcement of the end of the armed struggle there was now a more peaceful atmosphere in the region and this should lead to a substantial improvement in the dynamics of democracy in Turkey.

They urged the Turkish authorities not to crack down on legitimate political parties and NGOs in the light of the EU.s decision of 2 May 2002 to place the PKK on its official list of terrorist organisations.

They also noted the condemnation of Turkey by the European Court of Human Rights for banning the HEP party and expressed the hope that the Turkish authorities would not follow the same path with regard to HADEP.

The delegation was led by Mr Joost LAGENDIJK (Greens - Netherlands), who is also the Co-Chairman of the EU-Turkey JPC. Also participated : Mr Bas BELDER (EDD-Netherlands), Mr Andrew DUFF (ELDR-UK), Vice-Chairman of the JPC, Ms Adriana POLI BORTONE (Italy), UEN, Mr Lennart SACRÉDEUS (EPP-ED - Sweden) (Ankara only), Mr Johannes SWOBODA (Austria), PSE, Ms Feleknas UCA (GUE/NGL - Germany).

Ankara, 10th May 2002

PRESS STATEMENT

It is important for Kurdish interests to be represented in the Turkish political system. declared Joost LAGENDIJK (Greens/EFA, Netherlands), the leader of an ad hoc delegation of the European Parliament which came to Turkey to examine the circumstances that led to a call by the Turkish Chief Prosecutor for the HADEP (People.s Democracy) Party to be banned. Mr LAGENDIJK considered that the banning of HADEP would be a .serious setback to democracy in Turkey.

The MEPs underlined their support for HADEP as an autonomous, non-violent, political party, that did not promote separation but stood for equal rights for Kurds. It saw no evidence that HADEP as a party, or any of its leaders, were linked to the PKK. Indeed it noted that HADEP administrators were usually acquitted of the charge of links with terrorism when they were taken to court. However, it recognised that some individuals at grassroots level might have ties to both organisations.

Parliamentarians also urged the Turkish authorities not to crack down on legitimate political parties and NGOs in the light of the EU.s decision of 2 May to place the PKK on its official list of terrorist organisations.

The delegation came in the wake of a resolution in the European Parliament which called for the case against HADEP to be dropped. It also arrived at a time when Turkey has been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights for banning the HEP (People.s Labour) Party. The Court considered that the Turkish decision violated the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. MEPs expressed the hope that the Turkish authorities would not follow the same path with regard to HADEP.

source : www.europarl.eu.int

Summary